Morgan in the Wilderness

I'm back, for now.

2012-01-03T14:41:00.000-05:00

Giant h/t to Stacy McCain, who some day may throw me some rule 2 love. Probably not. I should write more.

So, let's talk about the disastrous Republican Primary, because honestly Canadian politics is never less exciting than when we have a majority government (with a strong mandate, so the MTV voters can shut up). I had a conversation with my father about how Mitt Romney would be smart to pick Santorum as VP, and another conversation with my buddy Cezary over what the Republican party needs to do to regain some of the momentum they have squandered.
These conversations were very interesting, because if you analyze objectively where each of us falls on the scale, we actually cover a broad spectrum of American voters (despite two of us being Canadian). Cezary is a Chicago/Northeastern Democrat, with a background in finance and journalism. Dad is a retired army officer who owns a small business and does contract work for the Federal Government in Canada. He's Catholic, but not dogmatic, and drifts back and forth across various layers of social conservatism. In Canada, this makes him pretty solidly Tory, but down south he's an Independent. I am so conservative so as to make conservatives in Canada nervous, but not socially so. I also still care about things like winning elections, so I would be a solid Republican, though not of the Ron Paul variety.

All this to say, if you can get all three of us to agree to vote for you, we're a decent microcosm for winning a general election. Dad is convinced Romney is going to get the nomination, and I can't really muster any factual arguments to disagree. It seems Romney, while not being able to arouse the enthusiasm of the base still has a floor of support. He has not really dropped below 20 percent since he announced, which if you consider that there were between 5 and 7 candidates at any given time is cause for some satisfaction. Various other groups enjoyed bandwagon moments, rising and falling with the vagaries of a 24 hour news cycle.

Enter Rick Santorum. Written off from the start as an also-ran, most assumed he was going to be fighting with Jon Huntsman for a spot at the nominating convention. Most, but not Stacy McCain. I read his blog daily to get a feel for what people who are deeply religious and very southern feel and care about. I love southerners, I just can't get a solid grasp of their way of thinking, so I keep current by reading McCain. I have to say, for months now, McCain has been saying that people have deeply underestimated Santorum. I was tending to agree already, as from anecdotal evidence I have noticed a lot of SoCons don't really like answering polls. Just as in Canada, Liberals were shocked at a "sudden surge in Conservative support", Americans are now surprised at how well Santorum is doing. I believe it's because people who vote Conservative in Canada, and Santorum voters, are less inclined to answer polls. Response bias is a huge factor in polling, and as Stacy McCain likes to say "polls are not elections".

Back to Canada now: Dad and I, having a shared love of the political game, start wargaming potential mixes for the Republican ticket. Perry? No, another Texan with a case of Foot-in-Mouth Disease is the last thing the Republicans need. Bachmann? No, she blew it. She's now seen as the worst of the Tea Party tendencies (shrillness, lack of political savvy). However, if you tie Romney and Santorum together, you get an interesting combination. Romney is boring, true. RomneyCare offends the hell out of conservatives, true. Here's the thing, though. RomneyCare is legitimate where ObamaCare is not, as a State Legislature IS constitutionally allowed to make individual mandates. The Federal government is not. Now, before you tell me this is a wonkish argument that no one will buy, let me pre-empt: voters will believe it if Rick Santorum says it. Rick Santorum is a Catholic who has been married for 35 years to the same woman, has passed through the electoral grinder many times, and still comes out squeaky clean. He has a VERY photogenic family (his daughters being attractive and his sons clean-cut). Part of the reason he was written off was because he was seen as totally unthreatening. Mr. Rogers in the Senate so to speak.

This makes him very well suited to explaining unpopular policy and winning over independents, from a VP role.

Stay tuned for Cezary's take on it (and some pretty incisive condemnations of Congress).

Occupy Wall Street is the Problem, not the Solution

2011-11-13T12:38:00.000-05:00

So. Occupy Wall Street. #OWS. The 99 Percent (which is totally untrue, by the way). It's a farce, and an offensive one at that. Despite repeated assurances that it's a broadly representative cross-section of society, the Occupiers remain mainly young university student types. Why? Because everyone else is too busy working for a living.

Think of it this way- even if Wall Street and the Super-Rich were to blame for all of life's problems, how is camping out going to fix it? What are the policy objectives? Who specifically will benefit? How will we transition from an unpleasant now to a successful future? No clue, obviously. But there are drum circles and call-and-response chants. Great. That will solve everything. Ironically, while mainly white over-privileged university protestors waste time demanding something, eventually, the children of immigrants are working hard and getting jobs. Sure, they are entry-level jobs at 20k a year, but that's life. In 5 years, while their whiny OWS peers are still suffering from student debts, companies are going to be managed by large numbers of people with names like Prabhakaran and Chen. Which, frankly, is how it should be.

What's my beef with all of this? It's easy. Nothing in life is free. Nothing. Somewhere, someone has to pay for whatever it is. "Free university tuition?" Ask the middle class in Québec how much they like subsidizing student fees province-wide. "Free health care"? Sure. Which is why Canada's highest tax bracket begins at 140k, with anyone making over 60k paying at least 40% income tax. And a 15% VAT. And gas taxes. And municipal taxes. Nothing. Is. Free.

And I'm tired of paying for the consequences of other people's poor decisions. You racked up 50k in student debt because you couldn't decide on which program you wanted to do? I hope you like paper hats kid. Start flipping some burgers, cause that interest on your loan won't pay itself.

This Isn't Fun Anymore

2011-09-22T19:15:00.000-04:00

Today, I had to give myself a new rule. I will stop engaging in political dialogue over Facebook. I know, this seems like a pretty logical thing to do and not particularly stressful. Unfortunately, I'm a political addict and Facebook is pretty well my only means of communication with a lot of my friends. So why cut this activity from my behaviour? Pretty simple really: it isn't fun anymore.

I love political debate. I was on the debate teams of my high school and college, and there's nothing I like more than some good verbal sparring. I also have unconventional views (Sir Winston Churchill would say I'm either heartless or old before my time). In college, I was used to being looked down upon and mistreated by those who really had no right. After all, most of my opponents were student activists at one of Ontario's many fine institutions; each convinced that in their own way they had all the answers. Queen's students were of course the worst, and closest in proximity. I remember bemusedly listening to a second-year history student telling me, a fourth-year politics major, that I knew nothing about Canadian politics. It was to be expected- she was stewing in her own exalted sense of self (no doubt encouraged by profs), and I was merely "a brainwashed army drone". No harm done. It was something to share over a beer with like-minded friends and have a laugh.

Flash forward almost 4 years, and I am now a relatively widely traveled taxpayer. I have seen, first hand, the collapse of Euro-Socialism in Italy and Cyprus. I've watched mobs of British hooligans trash other countries' historic cities. I've listened to French girls commiserate in airports over how they have to carry headscarves in their purses in case the Metro takes them through the wrong neighbourhood. I've sat and had tea with Imams in a country that receives millions a day in naïve and well-meant aid a day that has little effect. In my own country, I pay more taxes than pretty well anyone with whom I used to debate (unless they too live in Québec). I've lived next to lovely 20-somethings who, thinking they're in love, get pregnant and are surprised when their grungy jobless boyfriend takes off. Hell, I pay for the subsidies that keep the cost of their daycare at 1/4 the national average. Worst of all, some of the people I used to debate are still in academia and earn numerically the same amount I do a year, except their incomes are non-taxable grants. I'm sorry, but if you earn over 70k a year tax-free, I don't care how "green" you are. You no longer have the right to criticize me as being bourgeois.

My new life means that I see, directly and daily, the impact of poorly made policy. Helping people is a lovely sentiment, but all I see is people refusing to behave as adults and expecting me to willingly give up my income so they can continue living in a fantasy. A jobless university graduate is proof of two things: our universities are beginning to provide meaningless and easy-to-acquire degrees, and that person has an inflated sense of their own worth. If you survived 4 years of "higher" education, it shouldn't be all that difficult to find a job, even if it's only part-time. Small business owners I have met, and I admit this is purely anecdotal, have begun discriminating against newly minted grads because they seem to think they will start at 45k a year or more. I started at that- after 4 years of specialized job training, and I worked 80 hour weeks quite regularly at first.

I know, I have meandered. This long diatribe is to say that basically, I refuse to let students (or those who can't let go of the activist attitude) tell me I'm stupid or evil for believing what I do. I'm all in favour of passionate discussions, but responding to my lack of enthusiasm for gender affirmative action with "typical argument for a man" means that you have no interest in debating me. What you want is to browbeat me into submission; to accuse me of mala fides until I agree with you. How about you argue my facts or philosophies instead? When I say "maybe the reason that women are not equally represented in politics is because they aren't interested" you could respond "maybe they aren't interested because it has historically been an old boys' club, and they need help overcoming this bias". Instead I get "You're a drooling sexist ideologue who attacks anything with even a whiff of socialism, your mortal enemy". Well shit, if socialism shows up at my door with a baseball bat and tells me to take my beating and like it, you can bet I'm going to give it a size 10 boot to the head. If instead it showed up for tea, we could pleasantly rip away at each others ideology, and enjoy crumpets.

But that's just it: people in my age category are not interested in genuine thought. "The Science is Settled", so to speak. It's in-group dynamic on a global scale. The same people who tell me I should vote for Andrea Horwath in the Ontario election, despite her feeble grasp of economics and the law, work themselves into a furious lather over the idea of anyone voting for Sarah Palin. The idea that they're hypocrites never surfaces, because this isn't about thought. It's about intellectual fashion. Conservatism has been defined as uncool. Trendy adherence to the latest leftist dogmas are enforced by cults of shrill young people who can't understand why someone like me would dare to disagree with them. It's the old joke about Lady Astor being surprised at Reagan's election, saying "but no one I know voted for him!"

They always have a suitable anecdote to hand to tell me that I'm wrong, of course. When I point out that socialized medicine has led to a crumbling and ineffective service, they tell me how their aunt survived breast cancer thanks to an Ontario hospital. When I point out that welfare, instead of helping people get back on their feet, is creating a permanent underclass of those who have never and will never work, I'm tearfully told of how one survived thanks to food stamps for a year. I get it! Sometimes, the system does exactly what it's supposed to! Anecdotes, however, serve to reinforce arguments, not to replace them. If, in Britain's case, 20 percent of the population has never and will never have a job, you cannot respond "yes but I survived on welfare for a while". The elimination of 1/5th of the potential workforce due to government-subsidized laziness cannot be explained away by tugging at my heartstrings.

But alas, all of this argumentation is me just venting spleen. None of this will matter until I turn 30. So I just keep quiet, and comfort myself that I am actually motivated and talented enough to change things, whereas these others are sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Ruminations on Rudeness and Grief

2011-09-06T15:17:00.000-04:00

According to Starbucks, Autumn has arrived. While I might dispute their decision on meteorological grounds, I'm actually delighted because I am a fiend for all things Pumpkin. Pumpkin Pie, Pumpkin Spice Lattés, Roasted Pumpkin Seeds...Ahhh... Glorious.

The other thing I like about Autumn is that sober reflection seems seasonally appropriate. I can wistfully consider my loves lost or quietly watch the waves roll down the fleuve St-Laurent without seeming hideously out of place. Today I will kick off the season of sober reflection with a (probably windy) reflection on how our society deals with grief and its accoutrements.
Rather conveniently, current affairs have provided an interesting case study. The Honourable Jack Layton passed away recently, to an effusive outpouring of public grief. He is the first person in Canada to receive a state funeral when none of the criteria for such were met. Probably a canny move on the part of Mr. Harper to do so, what with the public reaction. Smiling Jack was consistently voted the Politician With Whom Voters Would Most Like to Share a Beer. He had integrity, and generally played the game without excessive nastiness. He was also perennially unsuccessful. As many pundits noted, our society has run towards mass grief since the death of Princess Diana.

Christie Blatchford was characteristically blunt in her assessment. I particularly like her use of the word "mawkish". It seems to me that a more honest, and more respectful, way to honour a man like Jack Layton would be for everyone to share a pint and tell stories about what a character he was. Dippers could rejoice in his indefatigable pugnacity on behalf of union members, conservatives and liberals could laugh about how he just wouldn't go away. We'd all enjoy stories about a particular bon mot during a debate (like when he eviscerated Michael Ignatieff on his attendance record), wish his ghost a peaceful rest, and carry on with our lives. Alas, in modern discourse this is not enough. No, I must put on sackcloth and ashes, and wail manifestly untrue pieties lest his wrathful shade...put a bicycle lane on my street? I don't know. Something terrible. Obviously I'm some kind of soulless wretch, as my grief isn't profound enough over the death of a man "who united the country" (according to the Globe and Mail, and Stephen Lewis). Except that, as Michael Coren points out, Smiling Jack was never more than a pleasant Also-Ran when it came to the ultimate goal of becoming Prime Minister. As I used to say; you'd share a pint with him, but not your chequing account.

I also like how Mr. Coren pointed out that the same people who were diffident and reverential when Shawn Atleo enacted some kind of native funeral rite mock the Catholic church for mysticism and mummery. It's an excellent point: why do the bien-pensants mock Yahweh but revere Manitou? One would think a Flying Spaghetti Monster is a Flying Spaghetti Monster, regardless of cultural origin. Of course, Coren and Blatchford both noted the excessive and hostile response they got from the public. Blatchford even had enough to write a second column about the hazards of stepping outside of acceptable discourse in Canada.

So I guess my question is this- which is more rude: insufficiently public grieving or the mob hostility against those insufficiently prostrate before the altar of public emotion?

Difficult Admissions in a Time of Uncertainty

2011-09-03T16:06:00.001-04:00

Dear Readers,

It is with great regret, and just a hint of hope, that I am forced to make several admissions today. I know that these admissions may be shocking, and perhaps even offensive to my regular readers (all 5 of you). Try to contain your gasps and ejaculations of horror until the end. I will be available for questions.

Admission the First: Bicycle Lanes Are not Evil
I know, I know. As a libertarian, I should be railing against the micro-regulation of human transportation. I should point out, with varying degrees of accuracy, that bicycle lanes actually increase congestion and inconvenience motorists who are real contributing members of society. Unfortunately, the advent of the BIXI-Bike has rendered this argument less persuasive. You see, the BIXIes have made cycling practical and easy for the population as a whole. Short hops in the downtown are now quick and easy, reducing pressure on public transit and yes, the regular traffic grid. The fact that the bike lanes are put mainly on one-way side streets also helps. I cannot comment on the impact in winter (yet), but for the most part I can see the advantages of the bike lanes. The fact that a wide cross-section of society uses them now also reinforce my point. The side-benefits of increased physical activity, etc, are of course to be considered. As a final note, I'd like to point out that the BIXIes are a fine example of capitalism. After all, they encourage credit-card use.

Admission the Second: Ann Coulter is No Longer my Favourite Pundit

I'm so sorry, Ann. I love your quick wit, and your sharp tongue. I have defended your ways to all and sundry for years. I own most of your books, and read your weekly column at Townhall.com. Alas, you're descending into crankdom. Your writing has lost its crisp snap, and its unusual erudition. You now bounce around the blogosphere as the loudest and most refined echo in an already busy echo chamber. Here and there, you show flashes of the old columnist with whom I fell in love, but for the most part it has become a litany of worn accusations of Mala Fides and communism. Yes, love, Liberals are smug and irritatingly convinced of their own superiority. So am I. Ascribing supernaturally evil attributes, however, is just poor writing. When I would normally devour your writings in a single, fevered sitting, I actually got bored with "Demonic" and picked up Jonathan Kay's "Among the Truthers" (a fascinating read) instead. You used to provoke genuine reflection with a healthy dose of amusement, dear Ann. Now I feel like I can predict your writings before you even put pen to page. It's not me- it's you. I'm afraid my love affair is at an end.

I think that's enough for the shocking admissions for now. I've been enjoying my time off, but I am seriously looking forward to going back to work. A man needs to keep busy, I think.

Those three Little Words Politicians Find so Hard to Say...(Sorry, Red Green)

2011-08-31T11:35:00.000-04:00

We Don't Know. I mean, think about it. How many times have you heard a politician answer a question bluntly and honestly with an admission of ignorance? Maybe with a tagged on "it's a risk, but we believe the potential rewards merit the response" or something equally erudite. Alas, politicians deal in ridiculously ignorant certitudes that they can't back up at all.

What am I talking about? Libya, of course.
Fareed Zakaria, usually fairly even-tempered, wrote a soaring and triumphalist tract about how the most amateurish military operation in NATO's history should actually be the template for Western military interventions. Before you accuse me of dismissing him out of hand, he does make some excellent points. The fact that the operation is indisputably Libyan, and that all the hard and glorious deeds of liberation belong to the population itself, truly is a wise move on NATO's part. Unfortunately, Mr. Zakaria doesn't quite understand why we so like to have "anonymous advisers in sunglasses and body armour" (I wish I could remember who used that phrase) is because we need to know who we're supporting. We quite literally handed NATO's combined air power to the first group of people who could rally enough fighters to challenge Qaddafi's ground forces. They could be lizard-worshipping cultists, for all we know. These rebels have the best deal in history- they spout enough democratic platitudes on facebook and twitter, and 3 major military powers quite kindly chip in with several hundred billion dollars' worth of advanced hardware.

I exaggerate, of course. We know they aren't lizard-worshipping cultists. My point, however, stands. There is not a single military man from NATO on the ground alongside the rebels. How do they treat their prisoners? We don't know. What are the concrete policies of their shadow government? No clue. Why did their leading general get assassinated? We think it might be because he pissed off some jihadis. Well, that's certainly comforting.

I'm not saying bombing Qaddafi's air forces into the dust was a bad idea. I am saying that supporting completely unknown groups is not a good idea. How do we know that the Afghan National Police are corrupt and ineffective? Hundreds, if not thousands, of eye-witness reports from ground forces (usually mentoring teams). The simple fact of the matter is that while journalists have been taking impressive risks to try to report on the insurrection, any arab militant group who isn't able to fool a journalist at least some of the time is probably a couple of minutes away from being annihilated by a Secret Police raid.

Could Libya become another fragile but hopeful democracy in the Arab world? Sure. But I'll save my triumphalist declarations of a new era in policy until I see the first elections.

Back! And, of course, disgruntled.

2011-08-25T21:09:00.000-04:00

So, I'm back from my whirlwind tour of parts of the world better left undiscussed. Seriously though, I don't want to talk about it all that much. Which is why I have decided to comment on the first thing I noticed on coming back: complexity has replaced integrity in the minds of those who fancy themselves polite and educated.
"Morgan, that's particularly obscure, even for you". Yes, 'tis true that it is a somewhat arcane formulation to describe how a large number of people have irritated me since my return, but it is in fact accurate. Permit me to elucidate (I'm having fun with words today). When I returned home, I was the subject of some embarrassingly public media coverage in Toronto. Unsurprisingly, everyone I know in Toronto felt the need to comment on it, which is fine. Some, however, went so far as to ask when I would visit next. We should have coffee, we should reconnect, etc. Fortunately for my own sanity, I was somewhat skeptical, having been burned by such offers previously. However, I firmly reminded myself that I should be less cynical and that avoiding social activity was the first step on the road to PTSD. Off I went, to visit cousins (we had an amazing time at the ROM, you should go sometime). I decided to extend my trip, at my own expense, for several days so as to accommodate the approximately 10 people who had said they wanted to see me. On my arrival, I sent a text and facebook message saying that I was at their leisure. I understood full well that they have their own lives, but the resounding silence I received all week left me confused.

Hung over, on the plane back to QC, I realized what had happened. My reputation (which some degenerates in Toronto used to take women home, by claiming to have been in my Troop when I wasnt paying attention) was of value to these people. My physical presence was not. What I, in my naïveté, hadn't understood was that these people were extending an offer they didn't expect me to actually accept. QC being inconveniently distant from their lives, they simply assumed that as they wouldn't visit me, neither would I visit them. They assumed that we were speaking the same language- "Come visit us" was "we're glad you're back, because it's interesting conversation to tell our friends we know you". When I said "sure, I'll be by sometime soon" they were hearing "I appreciate your offer in the spirit it was given.

All this to say, out of a desire to be "polite", no one could find in themselves to use simple, unladen phrases like "We're glad you're back. Saw you in the paper, that was pretty cool". Everyone wanted to "be a part" of my life with out having to do any work. At first, I was upset. After all, I had put the effort in, right? Upon reflection, I realized that a large part of the eccentricity I display that so frightens people is that I am unusually active. To use phrases my contemporaries might better understand, I display an unusual degree of agency in my own activities: that is to say I am the driving force behind most of what I do.

One of the first lessons we learn in my profession is that people fall into broad categories. There are those who do, those who have things done to them, and those who have no idea things are even being done. Unfortunately, our welfare state encourages people to fall into the second category. After all, why should you slog through the morass of shifting regulations and permissions when you can simply sit back and roll with the tide? The ever-expanding complexity of basic activities is resulting in widespread apathy. People learn to specialize in one form of complexity so as to sustain themselves (get a job) and then ignore the rest.

Which brings us back to my original point: complexity, being seen as a mark of specialization or authority, is being unnecessarily applied to human interaction. To say what you mean, or mean what you say, is seen as boorishly simple. People incredulously look on when I actually exert the effort and expense to do something they assumed I wouldn't. To avoid awkwardness, they don't respond. I can't really blame them; it's what they've learned.

George Jonas Makes Interesting Intellectual Point on Omar Khadr, Irrelevant in Time of War

2010-10-26T21:34:00.000-04:00

In the National Post, George Jonas wrote a column on the fact that confessions from detainees may be true, but are always coerced. This is an interesting, and well argued point...

...That remains totally irrelevant.
The thorny issue with detainees in current conflicts is that since they do not abide by Geneva Convention rules, they cannot be Prisoners of War. Prisoners of War have a clear status, are combatants, and are accorded a plethora of rights essentially based on "if we treat their prisoners well, they will reciprocate". On the whole, this worked fairly well. In one of those absurd gentleman's agreements, everyone accepted that you would feed and care for your enemies, while guarding them. They would, as stipulated by their oaths of service, do their level best to escape. The guards would try to catch them, and only kill them as a last resort. After all, I can trade one Wermacht Captain for an RAF Captain, right? The two officers sign parole, go home to their families and sit the rest of the war on the sidelines. All very civilized.

Except that even in the "Golden Era" of prisoner exchange, some people didn't play ball. In WWI, T.E. Lawrence and his Arab Horde famously disregarded these conventions, as did the Turks. The Germans and Russians merrily butchered each other in the brutal winters on the Eastern Front, Geneva Conventions or not. The Japanese simply didn't care (as the whole idea of the Geneva Convention is ludicrous to the culture that produced Bushido), and after the Llandovery Castle incident, there are persistent rumours that even the notoriously even-handed Canadians executed their fair share of prisoners.

All this to return to a point I have made before: laws are a contract. To be protected by a law, you must adhere to its conditions. Laws are also a product of culture. To maintain your cultural integrity, you should always try to adhere to your own ethics even if the enemy does not, which is why I do not advocate summary execution for insurgents captured in Afghanistan and Iraq. Not only is it a stupid thing to do, but it is also wrong. Once we have them in custody, however, applying our laws becomes tricky. You see, we are fighting an enemy that rejects not only our law but the fundamental principles on which we base them. They like the loopholes though, and so will throw out the baby but keep the bathwater. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed himself pointed out that every day he is kept in custody is a blow against the Great Satan- every dollar wasted, as even if he "confesses" to a crime, he is not admitting a wrong. He is merely continuing to fight in the only way he can now that we have captured him.

Due process is important, but this is war. When due process becomes a hindrance to fighting this war, we are merely aiding our enemies. "Guilt beyond reasonable doubt" and pristine, coercion free confessions are ideals to be tried for and unquestionably applied as often as possible. But, as in the case of Omar Khadr, when the circumstances of your apprehension by definition prove that you are guilty of a war crime (participating in armed conflict without wearing an identifiable uniform or carrying ID), trying to protect all of your "Charter Rights" becomes dangerous absurdity.

Ontario Violates Constitution and Human Decency in the Name of Fear

2010-10-23T15:12:00.000-04:00

I have a lot of stress in my life right now, and so I've been trying to avoid reading the news too much. Alas, the Ontario Courts have decided that I need a double-dose of outrage to get my day going. In a recent decision, one of the Appellate Courts decided that a Muslim woman testifying against her accused molesters had the "right" to wear her Niqab while giving testimony.

I cannot even begin to describe my feelings- but I can tell you why this is insane.
Firstly, let's talk practicality. The Court decided that her "strong beliefs" made it acceptable that she wear this Niqab. Gee, I guess the next time I testify in Court, my "strong belief" that the Canadian legal system is becoming a giant joke will compel me to wear a Halloween mask. I'll be sure to cry and find a sympathetic psychologist to point out that without some levity I'll be unable to focus, or some such garbage. Furthermore, how can we be sure it's actually her? I guess we'll have to hire some more women, so she can lift the veil before testifying. Of course, these new hires will need expensive training to ensure they are sensitive and not overly interrogative when comparing the face to the ID.

Now let's talk ideology, and the hideously thorny issue of rights. Apparently, this woman has a "right" to practice her religion in a court where the Ten Commandments and Crucifixes are no longer permitted to be displayed. I personally don't care if she walks around all day veiled- she can if she wants. It'll be like January in Québec, but all the time. However, her "right" to be veiled doesn't override the man's (one of her relatives, in an irrelevant but disgusting twist) right to a fair trial. You see, when cross-examining the witness, defence lawyers often point out facial tics and the inability to make eye contact as indications that a witness is not credible. A defence lawyer will watch if they begin to sweat- it means the questions are getting difficult. All of these things serve to ensure that the defendant gets "his day in court". Of course, if the woman speaks in a quiet and steady monotone, while veiled, and refuses to make eye contact as "a modest Muslim woman", then none of this is relevant. Why have her testify at all? Why not just have a computer read out a signed affidavit? Because in our system, we give defendants the right to face their accuser.

The real issue here is that Islam, and particularly those sects of Islam that insist of putting women in various forms of potato-transportation-device (burlap sacks for those of us less fluent in Progressive Inverted Tongue), maintains that the legitimacy of its laws comes from Allah and therefore supersedes all other rules. This woman is in effect saying "I can't show my face in court because Allah says so". Yet, in Canada, every other religious group has and continues to make concessions to secular laws and regulations. Sikhs cannot carry kirpans into designated no-weapons zones (schools yes, airplanes not so much). Hasidic Jews are still required to comply with safety regulations as concerning their long hair, which is probably why you don't see them working on oil rigs and the like. Mennonites when driving their buggies still comply with the Traffic Act: they yield for all higher-speed vehicles and don't try to use the 401.

The list goes on. The difference is that we aren't in a global conflict with radical Mennonites, and though the Hasidim sometimes try to get women's gyms to use frosted glass (denying me my constitutional right to leer at fit women), they don't try to do an end-run around established norms.

It's simple: one set of rules applies to everyone. If Allah doesn't like it, pray harder for forgiveness.

Why I vote How I do, and Why my Age Group Drives me Insane

2010-10-14T11:15:00.000-04:00

A lovely little article in the globe and mail that I won't bother linking made the same tired argument socialist pollsters have been making since I can remember. Basically, it looks something like this: Young people don't vote, but when polled they're fashionably "progressive". The conservatives get practically wiped out, and we have a fun blend of NDP, Liberal, and Bloc voting.

Here's why the whole concept is not only irrelevant, but actually dangerous when applied.
First of all, in the Canadian example, the Bloc Québecois gets to be the official opposition. Think the Sovereignty issue would really die with Gilles Duceppe in Stornoway? Me either. Secondly, the NDP and Greens, with their interchangeable policy, would constantly be trading voter blocs. You see, this poll scenario is Rep by Pop, rather than First Past the Post. So if young voters turn out en masse and start splitting the vote, even if they can amass the votes necessary to hold a seat each party is on ludicrously shaky ground. Politics degenerates even further into the game of who can give the most candy.

That's the second problem. Young people tend to be Issue voters. Stupid ones, at that. You see, young men will pick one issue to become passionate about and then use their knowledge to impress young women. Young women, on the other hand, pick an issue that affects them more directly. While the feminine tendency is more rational, it also makes pandering so very easy. A quick study on the young women in your district, and you discover that the majority are university students with debt and little interest in children. So you stand up an attractive young man as a candidate, who speaks with great emotional empathy about the environment and the need to do away with "corporate greed". He sticks to the script (teleprompter) and sweeps the youth vote. After all, young men are idiots and want to impress the smart young women by agreeing with them.

If you haven't figured out where I'm going with this, I'd be surprised. You see, we already know what happens when the youth turnout surges. We get President Obama and the Pelosi Democrats. Believe it or not, there is more public expression of outrage NOW than there was under GW Bush. Why? Because young people generally have no political attention span. They were "part of something" and got their man in office. But now that it's time for the dirty, uninspiring, and often nasty work of governance, the youth voters are nowhere to be found. You can't pick up that cute Human Development major over an organic chai-latte by discussing the dangers of federal overreach and how term limits might be a good idea for representatives too. You don't bring a tear to her eye, or blood to his ears, by discussing the failures of socialist monetary policy and the dangers of allowing too much foreign debt ownership.

Elections are about Grand Ideas. Politics are about how many details you can wrest from the Devil. Young voters don't think about consequences because they won't be the ones picking up the tab (or so they think). Mobilize, vote, disappear on some humanitarian mission to Guatemala, and when the World hasn't Begun to Heal, and it turns out The Oceans Weren't Rising in the First Place, you can blame it on those damn old people and their cynicism.

Rapid Update: John Baird Talks Security Sense(Click for Link)

2010-08-03T14:25:00.000-04:00

Seriously. It's about time someone started talking sense. If I have to put up with removing my shoes and belt every time I go through airports, the least we can do is require everyone to follow the rules

The End of Responsibility Part the Second

2010-08-03T13:57:00.000-04:00

One of my favourite bloggers, Monique Stuart, also writes for Human Events. She rather eloquently puts her finger on a clear-cut example of what I see as being the biggest problem with my generation. Seriously, you need to read the particular article here.

Monique, if you see this, fire me and email. This one's for you.

Before I take specific umbrage at one of her toss-away lines about a Politics degree, I'd like to expand and paradoxically reinforce Monique's main point:

An education does not entitle you to employment. It exists to prepare you for the struggle.

You see, I am a graduate of the Royal Military College of Canada. I am particularly proud of this, as it provided me a well rounded education. And our rugby shirt is excellent. The advantages were many; small class sizes, an exchange to other Academies, robust physical training and a devotion to excellence in all forms. I am a better man for it (thanks Dad). The best part of the education, however, was the friendly but adversarial attitude in my courses. It wasn't about memorization, it was about proof of concept. I didn't have to agree with my profs: I had to prove to them that I could research and then argue my position. I went into the college a sort of Protest Conservative. I was centre-right because most of the people I knew were hard left and I wanted to rebel. Despite attending a Catholic school, my teachers all had impeccable international liberal bona fides. Social welfare was a given, universal single-payer healthcare gospel truth. I came out of the College a newly minted Libertarian. The more I learned about governance, the more I realized that we didn't have anything resembling the ideal. To steal a good line, there was a dream that was the West, and this is not it. One of my mentors at the College, and a man I had the great privilege of studying under was Dr. Alan Whitehorn. He is a dyed in the wool socialist, and I enjoyed our many sparring sessions. I learned more disagreeing with this man than I ever could merely memorizing the textbook. I also got my worst grades with him, in the low 70s. I deserved it; he never once let my intellectual laziness slide.

That long segue to say that most people my age do not get a classical education like I did. They enter an assembly-line of a university, sitting in classes with 400 other students while the prof drones on. Their assignments are graded by indifferent TAs who would rather spend time on their own graduate studies than read the dross of the plebeian class (of whom they were but recently a part). All the while, they are immersed in a university culture where they are presented a simple but flawed syllogism:

1. Successful people attended this institution.
2. You attend this institution.
3. Therefore, you are successful.

You will note that nowhere in this process are the words hard work or massive amounts of time and effort mentioned. In fact, it's merely presented as a given that success follows this education. Even with the pride I have in my alma mater, I recognize that should I not work like a devil, I will fade away into the background. I have the good fortune that some small part of history, if only on the peninsula that houses my College, will remember me as a good man. The annals of the College will remember my name, my cause of death, and with whom I served. However, should I want more to my name than an engraved stone on our War Memorial, a place on the wall of graduates, and a line in the Book of Remembrance, I will have to work, and work hard.

I am not American, and thus can lay no claim to the American Dream. However, any rational man who wants to be remembered as such must be willing to put some effort into his good name. I can't really blame my peers. From the first day, we are told that we are special. Gold stars for effort, smiles and rewards at failed attempts. No matter how poorly one did, one's confidence had to be protected. This is the worst possible learning paradigm for a difficult world.

I was fortunate; my parents are both highly educated, and while they never attacked who I am, they regularly pointed out that what was not good enough was what I had done. In fact, my failures were always presented as failures to live up to my own potential. Failure became a natural part of my leaning experience. Sometimes, success had to be achieved by standing on the wreckage of many, many failures.

I am a successful young man. I earn more than 40k a year (but not much more). I am on the bottom rungs of a career. What Scott Nicholson doesn't seem to get is that it wasn't handed to me, and what's more those high-powered careers of which he dreams demand hard work, or you stagnate (if you're lucky) or get booted (much more likely).

40k a year is a lot of money for a single 24-year old. I have people working for me who raise families on less than that. Eventually, through hard work, they will earn more and be better people for it. I too will climb the ladder- at a rate exactly congruous with the effort I expend. My education did not entitle me to achieve what I already have, and hopefully will. It prepared me for the struggle by teaching me not what to think, but how to do it.

This is the great lie of Progressivism: that you deserve something merely by wanting it, or having an elite decide you deserve it. Life may not be fair all the time, but your chances at the good life improve if you put your shoulder to that cart-wheel and push to the last breath.

The End of Responsibility

2010-07-17T15:29:00.000-04:00

So here I am, on my last real vacation before my next major life change, in a coffee shop. I am the very model of a modern hipster douche-bag. I am unshaven, hair styled, wearing fencing shoes with no socks, and furiously typing away on a post for a blog that few people read. The baristas are literally melting with adoration. My post is important to me, though. I've been exploring my old haunts, and despite the memories rushing back I can feel only faint nausea.
I was quietly drinking a double g&t (it's really hot and muggy in Kingston right now. I'm worried about malaria), and was subjected to the inane chatter of the waitresses. For those who know me well, I usually use this as a form of relaxation. It is mildly comforting to listen to the intense discussion over meaningless trivialities, as my life tends to be a drunken reel from one crisis to the next. This time, however, I could only down my drink and leave before my urge to destroy these girls became irresistible.

The dialogue went something like this ("like" being the operative word).

The dim interior of a waterfront pub. Three waitresses, one of whom is off-duty, chatter mindlessly around the cash. At the bar: middle-aged businessman, mildly drunk despite the early hour. Dark, silent, and slightly grim young man nursing a gin and tonic. Signals private, in combats, drinking water and trading a few words occasionally with one of the girls.

Girl 1: Like, oh my god, you worked 4 shifts last week! Are you crazy? That's like 24 hours of work this week. How do you find time?

Girl 2: No, it's fine. I blew off some shifts at my other job. I still worked full time though. It was awful. With Tina's party, I like didn't sleep at all for 2 days!

Girl 3: Yeah, but your parents are like, super loaded! Why do you even work?

Girl 2: Don't be a retard. Sure, they pay for school, but they only give me like 995$ a month for rent and food. You can't live on a few hundred bucks, girlfriend!

Grim young man starts, finishes his drink, pays in silence, and leaves.

That's right folks, this poor young body slave has to work...like FULL TIME... because her parents, being heartless tyrants, only pay all her expenses. How dare they not consider her social life? Isn't it a human right to go out, get slammed, and have indiscriminate sex? Where is the Liberal Party's culture critic on this? How dare Mr. Harper deny socialites government support!

Seriously. And these girls take pride in being "independent". It makes me want to light myself on fire in protest. An entire generation of proto-Keynesians and pseudo-Marxists are being raised because they cannot make the connection between effort and remuneration. A lot of university students have no concept of property rights (the fruit of your labour is an extension of your body) because they have no inherent attachment to their own efforts. Work hard, don't work hard, it's irrelevant, because Daddy will cover everything! Supply is irrelevant, it will materialize when you need it. Demand is all that matters!

And people wonder why I can't stand people my own age.

Better Late Than Never; Part the Third

2010-06-25T11:48:00.000-04:00

Boring Canadian Culture Wars Episode 6: Return of the Coalition!

Wow. Talk about a fast news cycle. Before it even registers on me that people who call themselves Liberals were contemplating the idiocy of another coalition attempt, the Official Party Word is "No, I am not now nor have I ever been part of an NDP-Liberal coalition". The leader of the YLC (Young Liberals of Canada), which is described by the Globe as being more radically progressive than the rest of the party, wanted this. They wanted every progressive in Canada in one big happy tent made from unicorn giggles and rainbows, which would lead to the inevitable defeat of the amassed Frowny Conservative Horde.

Well, it won't fly. Why? Because Canadians are getting more conservative. Trudeaupia has failed, and miserably. Immigrants aren't becoming happy Liberals in droves, average Canadians outside of MTV don't live in terror of guns, and people are finally beginning to realize that maybe this whole "free healthcare" thing is the boondoggle of all boondoggles. Not to mention, they are getting older. What makes old people go conservative? They have more money, that's what. They want to keep that money, so they can spoil their grandkids, own ridiculously large dogs, endlessly renovate their homes, and whatever other diabolical plots my father has in store for me. Paying exhorbitant taxes so that Québécoise libertines can have 7 dollar a day childcare doesn't really fit in for the average Ontarian Boomer. Ironically enough, it doesn't work for Québécoise libertines either; the massive nanny-state that is Québec is also rife with nepotism. Oddly, while your average socialist Québécois is on a waiting list for those fun social services, members of the Grandiloquently named National Assembly don't wait at all. Neither do people with suspiciously Italian last names. I should get in on this.

UPDATE:

From what I can glean from the Globe and Mail, Messrs. Ignatieff and Layton have chosen the dumbest of all possible options. There will be no coalition before or during the election, but post-election should the math work out, they will coalesce (coalitionate? coaliscify?) and become Canada's New New Government. Except that this is precisely the type of jiggery-pokery that annoys the hell out of Canadians. It's like the Liberals and the NDP watch Conservative attack ads and internal memos and say "hey, that's a GREAT IDEA!"

It's a wonder anyone takes us seriously at all...

Better Late than Never; Part the Second

2010-06-25T11:43:00.000-04:00

The Epic Continues! This time, Young Women Convert to Islam. H/T Mark Steyn (through his Ports Of Call, it was a British Newspaper. I'm sure you can Google it)

I recently read an interesting piece on young British women converting to Islam. Of course, this piece doesnt so much speak to me of the virtues of Islam as it does the vices of modern feminism. I've ranted on this before, but it's time for an update.

Read the article. What do these women have in common? A malaise associated with modern hedonism. Oddly enough, a few thousand years ago, a philospher in a hedonistic aesthetic society spoke out against meaningless living. "The unexamined life is worthless" said our friend Plato. So, it comes as no shock that these young women found that either the culture of ambition in the workplace or the culture of senseless debauchery was unfulfilling.

"But Morgan!" you say, "You enjoy a good debauch as much as the next man!" Indeed I do. But, I am not being shoehorned into a role that runs counter to my inherent gender identity. I have a job that allows me to protect and provide. My masculinity satisfied, and my contribution to society assured, I enjoy the occasional release from responsibility afforded by sitting at the bar with a good Bourbon and a fine cuban cigar. I also shamelessly appreciate the beauty of the female form, without objectifying it. After all, the modern woman possesses agency in her own beauty, does she not?

So, back to Islam. It appears to me that the comfort these young ladies find in Islam is that it encourages their natural female tendency to desire companionship and a domestic sphere. And here is where my critique of modern feminism begins. You see, I don't object to the idea of a woman in the workplace. Should she be able to do the job, she is more than welcome to. After all, the gender identity I spoke of regarding myself in the previous paragraph is not necessarily the gender identity of all men. Without fully ascribing to the concept of gender being a spectrum, I can accept that there are variations on the binary. Some men want to be protected and provided for, whilst some women want to be breadwinners. Kosher, halal, spot on, your own little piece of Nirvana. Problem is that most modern feminists (from personal and academic experience) label a woman comfortable being barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen Persona non Grata at best, and Traitora Excommunicatis at the usual worst. And so, like the confused young men who have difficulty with the insufficiently physical academic environment, young women find themselves unsatisfied with their oddly androgynous work environment.

As for the social scene, this is a particularly thorny issue as it is in effect a negative feedback loop that corrupts both genders. The modern sexual revolution allows for promiscuous behaviour because it is (abortions, morning after pills) consequence-free. This concept has deconstructed centuries worth of work to reconcile the naturally promiscuous nature of the male with the socially beneficial monogamous family model. Gone are the days where seduction was the art of demonstrating not only physical, but also social skill and beauty. Modern pickup artisits like to think of themselves as Casanovas; this is a sad joke. Where Casanova penetrated the Citadel walls of European nobility, the modern pickup artist bashes his way through the gyp-rock of a run down Baltimore housing project. Men behave badly to get sex, and because women are but infrequently socially stigmatized for accepting purely physical advances, why would they resist the advances? Of course, women not resisting advances leads to men repeating the process. After all, if behaving like an animal gets you sex, why change it?

Just look at the "culture" being foisted on us by music videos. I, too, dream of one day sitting pool-side, surrounded by gorgeous women all vying for my attention. But I dream of achieving this by being an inspired leader, a captain of industry, an illustrious poet, a vivacious politician. Current pop culture suggests that I forget how to speak any language above a grade 3 level, that I carry concealed and illegal weapons, engage in criminal activity on a regular basis, and treat the female form as a vulgar receptacle for my own masturbatory urges. One of our day's most popular songs refers to a woman as a "sexy bitch", that you can't "compare to your neighbourhood whore" and yet the beleaguered artist is "trying to find the words to describe this girl without being disrespectful". Without the slightest trace of irony. Seriously. I weep for the poor songsmith's agonies; alas, if only we had the words in English to describe a beautiful woman without descending into the vulgar. What's this book you're offering me? Norton Anthology of English Poetry? I don't even know what half of those words mean. I was too busy getting drunk, and increasing my collection of illegitimate children and criminal charges.

And you wonder why a world such as Islam, with structured rules and predictable (if irrational) expectations, would appeal to these young women. Maybe they were tired of being compared to the neighbourhood whore.

Better Late Than Never; Part the First

2010-06-25T11:31:00.000-04:00

These were a couple of blog thoughts I came up with while at work a few weeks back. Naturally, such things get derailed, but better late than never I suppose. This one is on Israel and Hypocrisy. Enjoy!

Yet again, we are expected to express shock and horror as the Israeli
state uses violence against "peaceful activists". Yet again, I am moved
only deeper into the pro-Israel camp. Allow me to explain why, before
the inevitable cry of "Zionist!" fills the air.

Firstly, Israel is a democratic country. For a place that is supposedly
apartheid and evil, I find it odd that they issue the same citizenship
documentation to Arab residents as they do to the evil Jewish overlords.
Kind of bad for the class division system, you know? It's also somewhat
awkward that they have Arab legislators at all levels of government. I
mean, seriously, shouldn't they be oppressed and weeping somewhere? Not
to mention that the standard of living for all citizens is
significantly higher than the surrounding states, including Jordan. How
the hell are you supposed to maintain an oppressive, racist regime when
Arab university professors make as much or more than your average
Hasidic Rabbi?

Secondly, Israel has the right to territorial integrity. Yeah, sure, a
group of Arabs known as the Palestinians got a raw deal when
international geopolitics sectioned the land they occupied into several
pieces. Shitty deal, sure. Three wars later, Israel is pretty well
defined. And you know what else? They took a completely unproductive
stretch of dust and rock, and turned it into an economic powerhouse.
They are fully prepared (as they have shown with Egypt) to peacefully
coexist so long as you don't, say, lob rockets into Tel Aviv. Not a
whole lot to ask, really. As for the plight of the Palestinians, does
no one else find it odd that the UN has been administrating their camps
for nigh-on 50 years, and they are STILL living in squalor? Short on
water, short on electricity, long on Kalashnikovs and Katyusha rockets.
Something doesn't quite fit here.

The simple truth of the matter is that the misery of the Palestinians
serves a wider Arab political purpose. As everyone should know, the
Arab states are fractious, tribal, relatively ungovernable pseudo-states
dominated by strong men. They also have petro-dollars galore, which
leads to a class of well-educated young men with more money than brains,
but enough brains to realize that life sucks even for rich people. So,
you're the Emir of Oppressive-Arabia. What do you do? Obviously, you
don't admit that social problems are your fault. That leads to riots,
and scratches in the paint of your 23rd Mercedes. You blame them on
someone else. Your people are fervent adherents to a reasonably violent
religion, so it'll have to be some convenient infidel. Unfortunately,
westerners have scary big armies and the nasty habit of launching cruise
missiles at people who get too uppity (or we did before President Obama,
anyway). So you reach back into hallowed antiquity, and remember that
the powerful Quraysh tribe were Jewish. And the Prophet hated him some
Jews. And what do you know, those Jews are at it again, making you look
bad with their successful nation-state.

Here's where it gets diabolical. You've got a bunch of people who want
to flee the new Israel because they don't like Jews either. But you've
chosen not to let them into your Emirate because you don't even accept
that Israel exists, and you can't flee something that doesn't exist. So
shrug your shoulders and watch as they form refugee camps. And then you
use these same refugee camps to incite those troublesome young men to go
vent their frustrations on someone else, like those evil Jews. Better
still, you blame all the resulting violence on Israel, for not being
humane enough to give land and control to the people who shoot rockets
at them.

And useful idiots in the west smile and nod, because after all, it's
what enlightened people do.

I don't really care that the Israelis happen to be Jewish. Oddly
enough, most Israelis don't even go to temple. They could be
Scientologists, for all I care about their religion. I do care that a
democratic and open society has to build walls and checkpoints because a
subset of the population thinks that blowing up cafes and nightclubs
with suicide bombers is an acceptable political response to being forced
to live in a country that includes people who pray in a different way.
I dislike living in a country with people who think God wants them to
have multiple wives (and that's just those Bountiful, BC lunatics). You
don't see me inciting my relatives to wipe BC from the map.

Conrad Black Receives New Avenue for Appeal (Click for Link)

2010-06-24T15:22:00.000-04:00

Conrad Black has received partial vindication today, and my feelings are mixed. The Supreme Court, in a somewhat complex ruling, declared that the objection Lord Black raised against the final Jury Instructions was in fact valid. I didn't follow the case closely enough to make my own call on his innocence, or not, but I will say this: something was rotten in the State of the Investigation.

Lord Black is no saint, I will accept. However, as an avid reader of his column in the National Post, I must say he doesn't come across as a criminal, let alone a perpetrator of massive fraud. He comes across more as Holmes than Moriarty. Maybe it's because I agree with him politically, but I really find that his insights into the US Justice System were accurate and insightful. Correcting for a certain degree of personal bitterness, it really is plausible that some Prosecutor was padding his resumé for a run at State Judge based on putting Some Rich Guy behind bars on a rising tide of Populism.

Which takes me into some delicate territory; I like democracy more than any alternatives. However, electing judicial officials strikes me as a dangerous place to start inserting uninformed opinion. Now, I know that the elections are supposed to be based on character and willingness to serve the public, but really, shouldn't knowledge be a factor? I mean, sure, if you pass the bar you're qualified to be a lawyer, but how is the public supposed to know if you're good or not?

Honestly, it's hard to say for sure. However, I had the nagging suspicion that Lord Black was being steamrolled by public outrage over Enron, and some Prosecutor was burnishing his CV. At least now we can get another step of due process.

Comments System Updated

2010-06-24T14:03:00.001-04:00

I apologize for requiring you readers (all 3 of you) to become members of some sort before posting comments, but the slew of fortune cookie comments by random Chinese add agencies is irritating the hell out of me. That is all.

Another long absence, more Musings

2010-06-24T13:59:00.000-04:00

More Stuff To think on, by Category. Today's menu? Al Gore is Weird, shocking news such as water being wet at 11. General McChrystal is dismissed. Aqsa Parvez's killers go to jail.

Al Gore, Sexual Predator?

H/T The Other McCain: This is just plain weird. Al Gore, molesting a masseuse in a hotel room? And if the woman's story is true, why did she continue the massage after the first attempt? Also, why was he not prosecuted immediately? Not that I'm not predisposed to disliking Al Gore... Still, I hope this story is true, as it once again positions the National Enquirer as a more reliable news source than the New York Times. If the Enquirer was right about Edwards and Gore, maybe they're right about Bat Boy!

General McChrystal gets the Kibosh

Not much to say on this one, except that I don't understand why a General in such a sensitive position would give an interview to the Rolling Stone at all, let alone one where he treats his civilian masters with contempt. A case of Auto-Petard-Hoistsmanship? Time will tell.

The Parvez Murderers Plead Guilty

This one has been in Canadian media for a few days, with some truly disgusting commentary. Go check out Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant for the nauseating double standard applied to Honour Killings in the west. Quite frankly, life imprisonment does not do enough to deal with the backward and medieval attitudes of these hideous examples of 3rd world barbarism. Should Messrs Parvez ever walk out of a Canadian prison, it should be directly into the arms of waiting RCMP officers who will escort them to the first Pakistan-bound mode of transport (preferably container ship). Even Aqsa's mother should be deported; she apparently advocated that her menfolk merely break the wayward girl's legs, rather than strangling her. It's apparently a "more appropriate punishment" for the heinous crime of adapting to Canadian culture.

Being fortunate enough to live in Québec, I get to see some sensible attitudes towards immigrants coming from the oddest places. Most Québecois are the height of liberal sensibility: tolerance, rights, government largesse, protection of minorities at the expense of all, etc. However, being fiercely protective of their culture, and generally mildly xenophobic, the Nation-Within-A-United-Canada is the only constituency that recognizes the existential threat of unconditionally welcoming people from East-North-Barbaristan. Before too long, you end up with a country that, like Somalia, has contiguity on a map, but is populated by people who insist on being from a particular tribe. "No, I'm not Ontarian! I'm Scarborough-Ontarian." Furthermore, certain cultural norms take priority over ephemeral religious customs and supposed rights. For instance, a Muslim woman from Pakistan insists that she cannot function in society without the Niqab, as it is the will of Allah. Odd. Last time I checked, Nancy Ajram is also Muslim. I thought that the will of Allah governed all, which would mean that Ms. Ajram wouldn't be able to go multi-platinum without the approval of He Whose Name Must Not Appear in Burger King Iced Cream Swirl. So, I suspect what Ms. Niqab is trying to say is that she doesn't want to function in a society where her outmoded religious customs are unacceptable. Frankly, if Catholics can live with Gay Pride Parades being funded by tax dollars, and Jehovah's Witnesses don't launch human rights complaints over blood-drives, then traditionalist Muslims can learn to live with the fact that a covered face indoors in July implies nefarious intent. And before the feminists jump all over me, if she is in fact being forced to behave so by her menfolk, then there are any number of taxpayer-funded programs (especially in Québec) by which this woman could escape patriarchal oppression.

More to follow tomorrow, or even later today. This boy is on vacation! Wheeeee.

Back From a Long Absence, with Musings

2010-05-23T12:48:00.001-04:00

Work has been ludicrous, lately, leaving me little to no energy for blogging. Standard blogger excuse, I know. So let's get on with it! I've still been keeping up with the times, so I have a few points of interest to touch on, as follows: Appointing Kagan, Ahmed Wali Karzai (fun for everyone!), the PA-12 and what I think it means, and President Obama's tin ear on Daniel Pearlman.
So, let's talk about appointing Elena Kagan to the SCOTUS. Frankly, I'm getting very tired of your standard Alinkyite tempest in a teapot approach to getting your people appointed. We're hitting the same damn thing as we had with Sonya Sotomayor. You see, with both Sotomayor and Kagan, we see the bizarre realm of identity politics obscuring the simple facts of basic competence. Granted, Kagan is Harvard and actually has some experience as a lawyer, but let's touch on a particularly interesting tidbit. Kagan has become Solicitor General, but she has never been a judge. Never been a judge, and now she is supposed to become one of the highest judges in the land? Never mind that, though. There's scandal to be had because she may or may not be gay. Which, the President assures us, she is not. But not that there's anything wrong with that! Oh god, what do we do. I can't keep track of these identity politics any more. Heaven forbid, however, that Christians should be concerned that a lesbian judge may legislate from the bench and infringe religious freedoms. Full disclosure: I think the Christians are wrong, but as far as constitutional rights go it is irrelevant.

I'm tired of her already. Next topic.

NATO has decided to play ball with Ahmed Wali Karzai, who is brother in law to Hamid Karzai, both of the intensely powerful Popalzai tribe. Let's be straight on this one; we have no choice. Sure, he's a mafioso (the NATO term is "power broker") and has probably more political influence than the President, but we're left with little choice. While the democratic system is working reasonably well in the Uzbek, Tajik, and other non-Pashtu areas, it's hitting some cultural walls when it gets into deeply Pashtun territory. You see, culturally, being someone in a position of power requires you to actually give stuff to the people who are related to you. What we consider nepotism isn't just encouraged, it's actually required! So poor old Hamid looks viciously weak to most Pashtun, because he can't get them the goods. Meanwhile, Ahmed Wali Karzai is cruising around like a Baltimore drug dealer, handing out everything short of liquor and whores (he is a good Muslim, after all). So what's my take? Work with him. He's cooperative. The Taliban want him dead. Sure, he's an influence peddler, but he isn't into the drug scene. Classic "he's-an-asshole-but-he's-our-asshole" territory. In that part of the world, probably the best you can do.

On to something less clear-cut. The PA-12 was fun for me to watch, as the vacillations between hope for a Brown-style underdog and clear-eyed realizations that the PA-12 is union country occurred almost daily. In the end, Tim Burns ran a good game, but lost. How? The Democrat ran the Harper game. Run on almost the same damn platform, and then use party affiliation to your advantage. Once in power, gradually ratchet things to your way of thinking. Most Ontarians are fairly centrist, so Harper got his ridings by outflanking the Liberals with their own platform, and harping (ha-ha, I made a funny) on their scandals. Same thing happened to Burns. Burns was running an anti-Obama, pro-capitalist platform. Funny, so did the Democrat. Registered Democrats outnumber Republicans 2-1, and more than 40 percent of workers in PA are unionized. No surprise that Burns lost. Not badly, considering, but he still lost.

Finally, President Obama's tin ear on Daniel Pearlman. Mark Steyn obviously does the issue more justice than I do, but the point deserves to be addressed. Daniel Pearlman's death didn't "capture my imagination". I didn't have to imagine it- and neither did thousands of supposedly moderate Muslims. Within 5 minutes of his grim death, Daniel Pearlman's final moments were in more than 20 countries. On cell phones, web sites. Almost always accompanied by the ubiquitous "Allahu Akbar". There's no dignity in it, no higher message. It was one man, having his head remove for the sin of being an American Jew. Hell, he was part of the group most sympathetic to Muslims (Mainstream Media), and they still killed him. What captures MY imagination, Mr President, is imagining what a real statesman would do. Ask yourself, President Obama, what would Churchill do? And then do it.

That's enough for today.

Listen to old Blue Eyes- If you're going to spend my Tax Dollars, do it on something Worthwhile

2010-03-08T12:33:00.000-05:00

My generation has been denied an experience that, for the briefest of moments, united humankind. In a time of unparalleled fear, when two superpowers were geared for a war that could end our existence, a leader had the temerity to declare that we would achieve the impossible;

We would put a man on the moon.
My father still remembers the neighbourhood gathering around a tiny television. My father is an immigrant, from Italy, and he grew up in downtown Toronto. He has no discernible accent, but if you were looking to make a Hallmark movie about an immigrant kid making it big, you could do a lot worse. He is generally a jovial man, with a slightly warped sense of humour (that he blames on my mother). He is quietly tolerant, and though firmly political he believes in maintaining a certain dignity while being so. It's rare to see my father genuinely upset by the opinions of others- he's mastered the art of brushing off most kooks and conspiracy theorists. There are a few notable exceptions to this, however, and one I find most admirable is this:

My father is absolutely certain that we put a man on the moon. It is a certainty that can come only from an education grounded both in engineering and history- he knows it is physically possible to put a man on the moon. He also knows that in the historical context, there was no advantage to faking it on a sound stage (how could they possibly get away with it in the Golden Era of espionage?). To imply, with whatever crackpot theory and shaky evidence, that the lunar landing was just some grossly overdone publicity stunt, is to attack the core of the democratic ideal: that nations can achieve great things through force of will, and for the benefit of all.

Some of you may be thinking "but Morgan, you hate government intervention, and the Space Program takes huge amounts of government spending!" You're right. It might even be mildly hypocritical of me to dislike universal healthcare but to love the space program. But consider this: the space program achieved what it promised, and more beyond our wildest dreams. For every tax dollar put into getting a man to the moon, we got unbelievable returns in terms of new market products. Unbelievably, when you really think about it, there was no opportunity cost to the Apollo missions! Figuring out how to get a man to the moon led to medical advances. It led to new industrial materials, from perfected velcro to new polymer blends. The work that went into building the Saturn V rockets led to better, safer airplanes. Our understanding of the human body would be centuries behind where it is now were it not for the experimentation and analysis on Astronauts. Practically every aspect of your life is touched by technology that trickled out of the space program- miniaturization of electronics particularly.

And imagine- we put a man on the moon using slide rules and computers so basic that your average wristwatch is now more advanced. My iPhone has more computing power than all of the onboard systems of Apollo 11 combined! When Apollo 13's air purifier broke, they repaired it with duct tape and some socks. What happened to that ingenuity? The inspiration that led a nation fearing its own destruction at the hands of its enemies to spend massive capital on going to the Moon? Practically speaking, a new Space Program centred on colonizing the moon and Mars would be the best bit of government spending I can think of. You want more energy efficient cars that don't rely on petroleum? Someone has to design the rover that colonists will use on Mars, and we can't guarantee there will be any oil. You want food security? The science that will allow for a self-sufficient colony on an atmosphere-free planet will make growing crops here on earth look like child's play.

The Canadian Air Force Motto is Per Ardua ad Astra- Through Our Efforts we reach the Heavens. It's time we took that literally.

The Mechanics of Constitutional Monarchy Mean Harper Has Every Right

2010-03-07T01:23:00.001-05:00

I've been seeing a lot of the same attitude, on Facebook, in the Globe and Mail, and on the Blog roundup. People who are unsatisfied with Mr Harper, particularly on the environmental file, say basically the same thing: "The Conservatives don't have a majority of the vote, how dare they act this way?!"

No offense, but despite your good intentions, you are wrong, and desperately so.
You see, the Canadian political system is not based on having a simple majority. The system is based on having a plurality. For example, in individual elections, candidates need only achieve a plurality as calculated based on census data and how many candidates there are to win. Example: riding North Nowhere has 8 thousand registered voters. Elections Canada generally leaves some fudge factor to allow for unregistered, and yet valid, voters. There are 3 candidates. Thus, the first candidate to achieve more than 1/3 of the vote wins. By the estimate, even with a little fudge, the first candidate to get 3000 votes wins. The others generally concede at this point. Hence the colloquial term "First past the Post".

As translated to the national system, the party that forms the Government is the party with the plurality of seats. Whether or not it is Minority or Majority depends on whether that plurality actually is a majority. In Mr Harper's case, he has what we call a Strong Minority because he only needs 10 or so people to vote with him from outside his party. This is ridiculously easy to achieve, because there are enough at-risk seats on the outskirts of Toronto and in Québec that certain MPs cannot afford to upset their electorates, nor can they afford to force an election.

Here's where it gets interesting. Let's go with estimates of current polling data, and apply them to the Environment. A lot of very well meaning people I know are very upset because the new budget doesn't include green measures, and in fact passes some of the responsibility away from the federal government to arms-length Crown corporations. Outrage ensues. After all, only 30 percent of people agree with the Conservative position, so 70 percent disagree, right?

Wrong. The Liberals and Conservatives are neck-and-neck at about 30 percent. The Liberal position, after the fiasco that was the Green Shift, is identical to the Conservative position, with the exception of the Tar Sands. Factor in about 5 percent for 1/5th of Liberals being more to the extreme left, and you still get about 55% of polled Canadians who are OK with the current plan. This is assuming that EVERYONE who votes NDP, Green, and BQ are on side with the environmentalists. A reasonable assumption in the case of the NDP and Greens, but not so in the case of the BQ. You see, Québec already has the greenest emission standards in Canada, and it is causing all kinds of problems for BQ heartland ridings. You need only examine the agonizing contortions the Charest Government put itself through over the Abitibi-Bowater plant closure issue to see that in Québec, the domestic is all that matters. While Québeckers love to be seen as "progressive and green", the minute you tell them that you're going to have to cut a favourite entitlement or close a factory because of a green policy, you can bet your ass there's going to be voter backlash. Not to mention the BQ just lost Rivière-du-Loup(!) to the Conservatives, so Mr. Duceppe is clearly playing defence.

So, as regards the more accurate estimate of polling data, what you get is something like this.

Conservatives- 30/30 do not consider the environment a priority.(-)
Liberals- 20/30 do not consider the environment no. 1(-)
NDP- 15/15 Consider the Environment no.1 (+)
BQ- 7/10 (Again, pretty generous) Consider the Environment no. 1(+)
Green 10/10 Consider the Environment no. 1(+)
Other- (just to be generous) 5/5 Consider the Environment no. 1(+)

So, even with me being generous to the Environmentalist side, you still get a (-)53/47(+) split in favour of Mr Harper's position. And this is without even considering the degree to which people agree or disagree with the policy. Factoring for that, Liberal voters care more about winning elections than they do about policy specifics, and Mr Harper has been teaching the Conservatives to play the same way. Given the degree to which Green measures are becoming unpopular in the US, especially California, as the supposed "Green Jobs" fail to materialize in the current economic climate, it should be a surprise to no one that neither of the serious contenders for Canadian government are choosing the Green Hill as the one on which to die. The Liberals did it once already, and it plummeted them to historic low standings.

The final lesson on this whole thing is this: just because you don't have 50 percent of people in agreement with you doesn't mean you don't get to make policy. To use an invented example, let's say that the Conservatives introduced a measure to declare the Pumpkin as Canada's National Vegetable (or whatever pumpkins are. I'm not a botanist).

30/30 conservatives agree.
10/30 liberals agree
20/30 liberals want the apple
5/10 BQ agree
5/10 BQ want the apple.
15/15 NDP want the mango (because we all know NDP voters don't make any sense at all)
2/10 Green want the strawberry
2/10 green want the apple
6/10 green want the mango
5/5 other don't care.

End result? 45/100 want the pumpkin! HOW DARE THEY?! THEY AREN'T THE MAJORITY!
Right, but they are the plurality because the other 55 percent can't agree. And they aren't going to force an election over it. Thus, Canada's national vegetable...fruit...gourd, whatever, is now the Pumpkin.

Moral of the story? If the "Majority" of Canadians really want something, politicians are willing to go to the polls over it. Mr Ignatieff just isn't convinced that the environmental issue translates to votes. And as it stands, the Liberal Party's horse and carriage tends to get rodent-powered, orange, and very eco-friendly when the electoral clock strikes midnight.

President Obama is Picking the Wrong Embassy Roof on Which to Die

2010-03-05T11:59:00.001-05:00

Ludicrous over the top imagery aside, the Obama administration really has come to the end of the line on the Healthcare issue. Most Canadians have a hard time grasping this, because quite frankly we get indoctrinated to trust no American news sources other than those on the left.
Canada abuts mainly blue states, and because right wing information sources tend to be polemical (and polemics are so impolite!) we tend not to trust them. Also, we like the feeling of smug intellectual superiority complexes, so whenever ABC or CBS, or even the execrable MSNBC tells us there is nothing to see and Healthcare will pass, we believe it. Furthermore, inexplicably, Canadians associate single-payer healthcare with the national identity. You wouldn't believe the looks I get when I point out all the flaws in the system and suggest private care would be better.

The point is that, objectively speaking, once President Obama accidentally made clear exactly what his agenda was (in some 400-odd public comments and appearances in just over a year), the American public massively rejected it. Mark Steyn points out, in his weekly Hugh Hewitt show appearance, that the American public started out at 70% in favour of healthcare reform. Now that they know exactly what reforms are planned, they are 70% against. Ouch. Things have gotten so bad that Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) opened her campaign with an Ad that basically says "I'm a Democrat, but not in favour of doing any of those things the Democratic Party wants". Yeah, from the home state of Slick Willy comes a savage beating for the Democratic Party.

Media elites like to complain that the Republican Party has become "the party of no". As the delightful Ann Coulter said in one of her columns, "when it comes to Obamacare, Americans don't want a party of "No," they want a party of "Hell, No!" or, as Rahm Emanuel might say, "*&^%$#@ No!"

Treating Terrorists Like Ordinary Criminals

2010-03-04T20:53:00.000-05:00

I've read a few interesting essays during my studies, and one book, that advocated de-sensationalizing terrorism by treating its adherents like ordinary criminals. It's an interesting thought exercise, though practically speaking it's completely pointless, as was demonstrated recently.

It doesn't work for a few reasons. Firstly, criminals generally know they are breaking laws, and thus the justice system is merely trying to reinforce an idea already held. Generally, when one robs a bank or steals a car, one knows that it is not an acceptable action. Terrorists, on the other hand, are attacking the laws themselves. They do not believe that they are doing anything wrong. To the contrary, they believe they are acting admirably and in accordance with a moral imperative. Terrorism is a weak man's way to prosecute a war. Merely the act of prosecuting them is a victory for terrorists- we waste time, energy, and money trying to tell them what they already know: we don't agree with them. They don't care, which would be why they became terrorists in the first place. In any other war, if you take prisoners, you hold them until the war is over, specifically to avoid having them go to Lashkar Gah and become commanders.

Secondly, our justice system as it stands isn't particularly effective at getting petty criminals to change their ways, so why would it work for terrorists? Our recidivism statistics aren't very reassuring. Quite frankly, the rational way to deal with this without stooping to the terrorists level already exists. You simply follow the Geneva Convention to the letter. Build some nice camps à la Stalag 17 in northern Québec, and put the detainees to work planting trees or something equally menial. Put the lovely things so far off the beaten track that they have to ship sunlight in by mule train.

Feed them 3 squares a day, house them, and tell them they can see a lawyer the minute Mullah Muhammed Omar signs a surrender in the Afghan parliament.

Speech From the Throne- Talking the Talk, It seems

2010-03-03T16:08:00.000-05:00

Well, the Speech from the Throne is out. Not a whole lot that is new or unexpected, given that it is Canadian politics. However, it remains a fairly ambitious project. No one will be shocked that the Conservatives are pushing for tougher sentencing on sex offenders, given that it was a campaign plank. Fiscal restraint is the word of the day, but as always, it'll be an uphill battle with the entitled.

Read more for highlights.
The part I like is as follows

Our Government will lead by example, introducing legislation to freeze the salaries of the Prime Minister, Ministers, Members of Parliament and Senators.
It will freeze the overall budget of Ministers’ offices and calls on Members of both Houses of Parliament to do the same.
It will freeze departmental operating budgets, that is, the total amount spent on salaries, administration and overhead.
It will launch a review of administrative services to improve their efficiency and eliminate duplication.
It will aggressively review all departmental spending to ensure value for money and tangible results.
Our Government will also eliminate unnecessary appointments to federal agencies, boards, commissions and Crown corporations.

For those of you unfamiliar with Canadian governance, let me assure you: this is the opening salvo of a thermonuclear war with the Canadian Public Service. You see, the Public Service has become almost parodic of itself. Anyone who has seen the old BBC show, "Yes Minister", will know what I mean. The government appoints bureaucrats to positions ranging from "Human Rights Commissioner" to "Assistant Deputy Undersecretary for inter-Ministry Cooperation". Ok, so I invented that last one. But I wouldn't be surprised if it existed. You see, the Canadian Public Service is filled with well-meaning Leftists who are convinced that if we just get enough people with degrees in Public Administration together, everything will be fine. See my post on funding the arts for a more detailed description. Hand in glove with the idea of getting well-meaning "experts" together is the idea that we just need to throw heaps of cash at a problem, and it will magically solve itself. If that doesn't work, do a Royal Commission. Perhaps even a Report on the Commission. Rinse, repeat, ignore taxpayer. It's working for our healthcare system!

We now pause for a mandatory safety message. In case of extreme sarcasm, your seat cushion may be used as a flotation device. En cas d'urgence causé par d'extreme sarcasme, veuillez utiliser le coussin de votre siège comme flotteur de sauvetage.

To steal from President Obama; let me be clear. I don't hate public servants. They are good people trying to do the right thing. Unfortunately, that doesn't make them right. They have been accustomed to annual budgetary increases as a matter of course, rather than a reward for a job well done. Simply freezing their budgets will do wonders for the bottom line, though personally I'm hoping "eliminating duplication" is code for "shutting down wasteful and useless bodies such as the Canadian Human Rights Commission." See Ezra Levant for reasons why this needs to happen, or better yet, buy Shakedown! It's worth every penny.

As a final note, Mr. Harper plans on opening certain sectors of the Canadian economy to foreign investment. This is sound policy, and philosophically consistent. After all, if we're going to moan about "Buy American", we can't very well keep our own borders shut.

Overall, an interesting speech. I haven't read it line by line yet, but I'm willing to give it a 7/10 for potential. Let's hope the execution can match.

What they really mean when they say "Reasonable Accomodation" (Click for Link)

2010-03-03T02:40:00.000-05:00

Yet another example of the ridiculous environment that Multiculturalism has created. We have become so timid and inept when it comes to defending our own cultural values that it takes a Provincial Minister to make a common-sense judgment, and the "victim" still gets to waste our tax dollars on a human rights complaint.
Forget that everyone involved on the anti-Niqab side makes sense. Having learned to speak a second language, and taken some courses in a third, I can assure you that it is not a BS point when an instructor says it is difficult to correct pronunciation when you can't see the student's mouth. Not to mention it's pretty damn tough to run a discussion when one student demands to be separated from the group because it includes men. How about the extra cost and effort for ensuring this woman gets a female instructor, or privacy from the men?

Honestly, I'm beginning to think the only way to stop this @#$!ing garbage would be to deliberately place a male instructor in her class, and then have him file a gender discrimination complaint against her because she won't accept a male teacher.

I remember very clearly when Hérouxville made their little charter for immigrants, outlining that antiquated and sectarian cultural practices would not be tolerated. The media decried it as "unnecessary" and "Islamophobic". Now who looks foolish? How many tax dollars are we going to waste on this woman who is demonstrating a clear unwillingness to become Canadian? And if she didn't know that people in Canada don't generally keep their faces covered indoors, and are required to interact with the opposite gender, then we have been doing a damn poor job of exporting our values. She wants Reasonable Accommodation. Problem is, "Reasonable Accommodation" is Multi-culti doublespeak for "I come from a perpetually aggrieved minority group. As a guilt-ridden white liberal, you must bow to my every demand lest I call you racist."

I'm not fond of Islam. But then, I'm not fond of most religions, as I prefer philosophy to theology. I suspect the whole veiling issue is more about regional (read: Arab) practices than religion. Funny thing is, some very good friends of mine are female Muslims. None of them cover their faces, probably because they don't come from Arab families. Are they worse Muslims than a woman in a Niqab, an Abbaya, or a Burka? No idea. But I do know they are better Canadians.

The problem with the way that we address human rights in Canada is that we tend to focus on identity groups. We label people, and then distribute largesse based on what group is the cause célèbre this week. Before too long it becomes a bizarre morass of point-scores (women trump men. But visible minorities trump whites. So does being a Muslim man beat being a white woman? What happens if the white woman is lesbian? Wait, how do we place a white lesbian woman who makes more than 60k a year? Is she "diverse", or a filthy bourgeois pig?) If instead we focused on individual rights (free expression, right to assembly, property rights), we would discover that groups are protected by default. If every individual has the right to expression, and assembly, then a group of individuals expressing collective faith are by definition protected! Even better, these rights are easy to manage because it becomes clear that your rights exist only insofar as they do not infringe on the rights of another individual. Put in a clear delineation between public and private spheres and we're cooking with fire.

Reexamine this case- this woman insists that wearing the Niqab is part of her religious expression, and thus a right. But she is receiving instruction at a public institution, where participation is contingent on adhering to common behavioural rules. It's a contract- get language courses from the government, play by our rules. Furthermore, her discriminatory behaviour against men violates the charter right of male teachers not to suffer discrimination based on gender. The other students are also being discriminated against- if she gets one-on-one time with an instructor, this is giving her an advantage. It's "positive" (as in doing something extra rather than denying something) discrimination, and still wrong.

There's nothing reasonable about accommodating someone who has no intention of adopting Canadian values.

Beauty is in the Eye of the Ministry of Art and Culture

2010-03-02T17:08:00.002-05:00

I've been having an odd week. Last night, I was dealing with a minor personal issue, and engaged in a conversation on the value of various forms of art. Interestingly enough, both items had the same answer;

Our current culture has somehow, inexplicably, come to the conclusion that the individual is irrelevant.

It's paradoxical. In a society that obsesses over telling our youth that everyone is a unique snowflake, we then proceed to institute policies and attitudes that render whatever uniqueness you may have irrelevant. As I was explaining to a young Québecois last night, the government should not fund art. Government funding of art warps its purpose. You see, as time goes on I become more and more allergic to relativism. Make no mistake-I am not evolving into a So-Con. It's rather more utilitarian in nature.

Some things are objectively better than others. Some people are objectively contributing more to society than others. Moral judgments aside, a doctor contributes more than a bureaucrat at the Health Ministry. Both have roles, but the doctor remains more important. Which is why it took 7 years of schooling to make the doctor, and he gets paid more. The bureaucrat is not necessarily a morally lesser person, but I'm certainly going to respect the doctor more. He has worked harder and achieved more.

The same holds true for art. Some art is objectively better. The whole point of art is to create a shared experience between the artist and the public. The more people you are able to affect with your art, the better an artist you are. The problem with government funding of art is that it perverts the natural mechanism by which people learn about moving pieces of art, be it word,film, or canvas. You see, when the government gets involved, it becomes a pack of self-declared experts determining what art they think you should see. And, because the type of people who work for these types of governmental bodies are almost always liberal-leftists, the art that is chosen for funding has to fit within the narrative already established by these busybodies. The natural mechanism, however, is that an artist produces a piece, and takes the risk of showing it in a public sphere. Should it be a moving piece, the public who saw it will tell their friends. Using a Classically Liberal and Capitalist mechanism, which idiots now refer to as "going viral", more and more people come to see the work and encourage (monetarily and otherwise) the artist to continue producing. Patronage in the renaissance was merely the wealthy choosing to spend their money on artists. Much more efficient than paying a horde of bureaucrats to form the Department of Arts and Culture.

To return to my point on individuality, the difference between what I want to see, and the way the government and society at large treats the issue, is that I am focused on the individual as the ultimate arbiter of what is art. The "experts" would have you believe that you get enough people together who have Art History degrees, and they will necessarily know better than you as to what is moving and beautiful. It's the tyranny of "expertise". It's the idea that some kind of benevolent group has the right to infringe on what I think and feel because they are many and I am one. It's the same idea that drives welfare- I'm too ignorant or evil to be charitable on my own, so a benevolent group will arbitrarily remove part of my income and give it to someone else. When it comes to something like art, there is no minimum qualification to appreciate art. Art that moves the people has to first move the person. You can tell me I should see something because you find it beautiful and think I will too. You cannot declare something beautiful and force me to pay for it without my consent. Legitimate governance comes from the consent of the individual.

No one has a right to demand that I feel a particular way about a particular thing. Not even if they get a fancy title from the government.

Israeli Apartheid Week- Howling Barbarism with a Thin Veneer of Education

2010-02-27T21:11:00.000-05:00

Canadian universities will soon be hosting Israeli Apartheid week. This truly is a revolting display of hypocrisy and ignorance. You see, it's mostly leftist groups that organize this, including gay and lesbian rights groups. As an article in the Ottawa Citizen pointed out, this defies the most basic of logical constructs.

How far our universities have fallen from their mandates.
You see, universities are supposed to promote logical though. But there is no logic to declaring Israel an Apartheid state. Are they racist? If so, how do you explain the million or so Arabs who are ethnically identical to the Palestinians holding passports, owning businesses, voting, and otherwise participating in the Israeli state? Are they responding disproportionately to a non-existent threat? If so, how would YOU suggest responding to hundreds of rocket attacks a year on innocent populations? Are they cruelly starving the innocent? If so, how do you explain the fact that Israel provides more humanitarian aid to Gaza and the West Bank than Saudi, Syria, and Egypt combined? Are they committing war crimes with the intent to exterminate their foes? If so, how do you explain the fact that the IDF has done more to limit collateral damage than any army in the history of humanity?

I could go on and on. You see, the problem is not that Israel is doing something wrong. The problem is that Israel exists. It expanded its territory in the time-honoured method of military conquest, which is considered (arbitrarily) illegitimate in this day and age. It has the temerity of outperforming all of its neighbours on every measure of success imaginable (unless public executions, illiteracy and general squalor are your idea of success). In a part of the world where homosexuality is illegal, and the separation of church and state considered heresy, Israel has Muslim and Christian members of parliament, and hosts a gay pride parade in Tel Aviv. Despite suffering rocket and mortar attacks every day, Israelis are better off than the citizens of any of the neighbouring countries. So much so that Israel outperforms even Canada in technological innovation.

But none of this matters to the students who will decry Israel's supposed evils. They see no cognitive dissonance in marching alongside HAMAS banners, so long as everyone is on the same "anti-Zionist" page. Do they not know that the very same Palestinians being supported by Gay rights groups in Ottawa lynch (or worse) their neighbours for even suspected homosexuality?

No matter. It isn't about facts, it's about narrative. The Israelis believe that some cultures are objectively better than others- Israel may not be perfect, but it is objectively better than the alternative offered by HAMAS. You see, Israel's existence directly refutes the Multicultural narrative. Israel proves western democracy, no matter how imperfectly implemented, is better than middle-eastern autocracy. The anti-Israel coalition wants to paint moral equivalence between HAMAS goals and Israeli goals. They try to tell a story of a poor people who just want a normal life. Odd, last time I checked, Yassir Arafat turned down everything you could ask for and more in Oslo. If anyone wants normalcy, it's the Israelis. When is the last time you heard Tzipi Livni suggesting that we drive the Palestinians into the Jordan? The Israelis repeatedly offer massive concessions in exchange for just a few months without rocket attacks. In a perverse parallel to the old Peanuts gag, the Israeli Charlie Brown is always ready to believe that Palestinian Lucy won't pull away the football.

Arguments for moral equivalence are always couched in the idea that no culture is better than another. Israel rather inconveniently proves this idea wrong. It's no surprise that this infuriates people, but one expects better of institutions of "higher learning".

Update: Global Warming Expert Effectively Confesses to Junk Science (Click Title For Link)

2010-02-14T13:56:00.001-05:00

Yeah, this from a British newspaper. Now, before people start giving me the standard garbage lines about media hysteria (Yes, Q, it is garbage), keep several things in mind.

The Scientific Community(TM) has been claiming the science is settled and demonizing those who disagree
The whole point of the AGW movement is to enforce draconian social change on capitalist society

AGW proponents have essentially been using Positional Authority (I'm a scientist, therefore credible and in charge) to bulldoze opposition, so attacking their credibility is fair game

The scare tactics of the AGW crowd are unraveling as their "experts" are revealed to in fact be activists. As I have said many times before: I have nothing against the environment. Recycling is fine, pushing for green energy solutions is fine. Enforcing global governance because of a pack of activist hysterics in lab coats IS NOT FINE!

Call me a human supremacist if you like, but even if AGW were true it would not be a valid reason to fundamentally curtail the liberty of the individual. The continued prosperity of the human race is more important to me than the maintenance of the ecosystem as-is. Things change. Get used to it.

In Anticipation of the Day; Why I Dislike V-Day

2010-02-13T19:02:00.002-05:00

Valentine's Day has become the most irritating of institutionalized holidays. I hate it. I hate it when I'm single, and the rare times when I have been in a position to go on a date on the day, the job has mercifully saved me from it. I would not like it on a boat, I would not like it with Navy's Goat... You get the picture. So, in proper Canadian Parliamentary Debate Style, I will elucidate my disgust for this most saccharine and pitiful of holidays.

Mr Speaker, as the Prime Minister I have a crucial cultural bill to present to the House today. After many years of seeing a particular day used as a bludgeon against reason and the true definition of romance, I present Bill C-101- Be it Resolved that Valentine's Day No Longer Be Recognized as Anything Other than A Catholic Feast Day. I will address the issue in the following manner: I will first give a brief history and origin of the holiday itself, which will naturally raise a crucial point as to why its present incarnation is junk. I will then move on to discuss the inherent classist and sexist mores inculcated by the continued practice of this holiday (where I will, and I cannot emphasize this enough, only briefly discuss commercialism). Finally, I will discuss the wholly negative philosophical lessons imparted by the holiday in its current incarnation.

To begin, whence Valentine's Day? Naturally, it is an abbreviation of the Catholic Feast Day of Saint Valentine. Even in the Catholic Church however, there is some ambiguity as to which Saint Valentine (as several early Catholic priests with variations on the name Valens were martyred) is responsible for the day. One suspects, as was common at the time, that the Church merely found a good martyr story that could coincide with a pre-existing pagan festival (Lupercalia in this case), and thus co-opt it. Regardless, the whole point of the Day (as reinforced later by Chaucer) was the celebration of the ability of Romantic Love to overcome all. You see, the generally accepted martyr myth is that Saint Valentine was a small-time priest that performed marriages for early Christians during the persecutions of Claudius II. More seriously, he performed marriages for Legionnaires who had converted, thus undermining the Empire's spiritual authority (the Emperor was God too, or at least a God). Thus, he was executed in a suitably gruesome manner for having the nerve to defy worldly authority in the name of love. So what is my problem with the Day now? If the purpose of the day was to celebrate love in the face of adversity, we have fallen very far indeed. As I will address in a later point, rather than being a celebration of the supremacy of love, the day has become a hodge-podge of various excuses, and worst of all, it is expected of you to celebrate it. Should you be in a reasonably new, but somewhat stable relationship, what adversity has your relationship faced? What has your love conquered, the Mighty Legion of Scheduling Conflicts? It's ridiculous, and it is an intolerable diminution of a truly admirable concept.

Secondly, the way that our society further perverts an admirable concept comes from craven materialism, and genderist hypocrisy. In a society that tries to claim that genders are equal, why is it that a young man is graded on his performance on this day by the monetary value of the soirée? A local radio station had an on-air contest, the prize being a dinner for two at the magnificent and expensive Saint-Amour, for the caller who had the best "cheap Valentine's Day date" story. The implications were clear; should a young man fail to provide a suitably chic and pricey evening, he would be fodder for mockery in following years. Never mind that not all men can afford a high-class restaurant, nor do all relationships merit such! To make matters worse, it is always the man who is expected to come up with the cash and concept. Essentially, the feminine society says "It's Valentine's Day- you're going to 'surprise' me with an expensive dinner somewhere nice. And if you don't, you'll suffer for it". I challenge anyone to provide me with anything other than anecdotal evidence that this is not true- I surveyed all of my acquaintances (21 to be precise, and I rounded because I don't know 5.3 percent of people) who had plans for Valentine's Day. 100% of the men said they knew their girlfriends expected something nice on the day. 5% were busy on the day of, and thus had arranged for something "extra-nice" (read- more expensive) to make up for the supposed failure. 0%, yes not a single one, of the women were doing anything other than dropping hints as to what type of chocolates they prefer. I'll take your right to vote back now, if you don't mind. Bad enough that the holiday has been mercilessly commercialized by just about anyone who can make even the most tenuous of links, but now young men have even more pressure and reason to be nervous because they know they're being graded on the event. It's almost a no-win situation, because the woman expects to be impressed. Rather than scoring points for impressing his lady, the young man now has to face the risk of losing points merely because it happens to be a particular calendar date. You win, you get to keep what you've got. You lose, and you suffer. It's totally arbitrary, needlessly expensive, and frankly insulting.

Finally, and this is the most personally offensive aspect, this Day paradoxically constitutes a "Get out of Being a Shit Boyfriend Free" card. You see, the previous point, where I mentioned that the day becomes a negative-sum game for the man, really only applies to men who are average or good boyfriends. If you are a shit boyfriend, however, and you pull off an average, or even only mildly poor, showing on Valentine's Day, you can guarantee an instant trip to the good books. Also, any male friends your girl might have will have to suffer another year of her whining about your inadequacy, but then pathetically defending you when confronted with the truth. I see it year after year. Some slob manages to hide his nature long enough to get some girl to agree to date him, whereupon he reverts to his true form. She whines for months about it, but suddenly he takes her to a stereotypical dinner where he barely manages to fake being a real human being all through dinner, driven by the hopes of "romantic" sex afterwards. And all is forgiven! Those of us who aren't tragic failures then have to listen to the girl gush enthusiastically for a few weeks about how good a man he is. It's like listening to someone taking excessive pride in a full-grown, fully-trained dog because it didn't shit on the carpet this week. Oh, it shat on the carpet last week, and will shit on the carpet next week, but my Goodness, isn't it just the best dog in all the world? And terrible boyfriends have spread the word: it is a lesson learned. All will be forgiven if on February 14th, you can plagiarize a movie effectively. Women often wonder why men can't be more like men in the movies. It's because we don't have to be; you'll fool yourself into believing we are over a stereotypical dinner and some chocolate from Wal-Mart.

It has to stop; the pitiful attempts to equate mundane romances with epic love stories. The gynocentric and economically vampiric arbitrary tests of affection. The hypocrisy and self-delusion. Enough! If you love your partner, why do you need to make a production of one day? What makes February 14th anything other than (in this year's case) just another Sunday? If your partner cannot surprise you with a truly romantic evening, regardless of its monetary value, on any other day of the year, then perhaps you have more serious problems. For these reasons, Mr Speaker, the proposition must stand.

To my Delight, Global Warming Alarmism Takes a Beating

2010-02-07T12:58:00.000-05:00

You know when the Globe and Mail starts running commentary saying the cause of Global Warming is lost, it's a good week for me. I've maintained, as my friends know, that the science behind the IPCC has been questionable at best. I have maintained that my position is logical and reasoned; I am not pro-pollution, but I am anti-world governance based on shaky evidence. Not to mention, out of cynicism I know it doesn't work. The Chinese certainly aren't upset about emissions. Regardless, read on to get some fun links!

Margaret Wente takes aim at Doc Pauchuri and hilarity ensues. Peggy Wente is controversial at best, but to see her getting 700-odd comments and 900-odd "recommend" clicks does the heart some good. She's not particularly deep or nuanced, which is the point. Wente writes for the affluent upper-middle class Torontonians. She's political, but not overly so, and generally pretty centrist. The important thing here is that she's one of the great draws of the Globe and Mail. She and Christie Blatchford draw huge numbers, both fans and enemies, so the Globe is generally pretty careful about what they're allowed to comment on. If Wente gets to blast the IPCC, it's pretty clear that the Globe editorial board is beginning to have second thoughts about the whole scam.

Lawrence Solomon airs a ton of carbon-dirty laundry, and once again we see activism trumps even junk science. Mr. Solomon writes for the Financial Post, so he tends to have a lot of statistics backing his work. No need to fact check him, he is pretty damn accurate. He points out that groups like GreenPeace are now in full damage control mode, repudiating the IPCC lest they be dragged down as well. Time to wake up children, the bedtime stories are over.

In an interesting piece, Terence Corcoran compares IPCC to Toyota, and injustice is made clear. No further comment necessary.

I reiterate my point on climate change: prove it first. Until you can prove with good, reliable, scandal-free science, do not attempt to vastly reorder society. Learn from Obama's mistake. You do not have a global mandate just because people like trees.

Narcissism and Its Effect on Politicial Behaviour

2010-02-07T00:02:00.001-05:00

Recently, I saw a couple of articles in the Globe and Mail that made a lot of sense to me. More importantly, they explained the manifestly bizarre political behaviour of my generation.

In the first article, someone had studied the demographics of dating websites, from the supposedly pure e-harmony to the more tawdry AdultFriendFinder. My own experience, with e-harmony and as a social experiment on myself, had been infuriating and traumatic. Naturally, I wanted to know why. In effect, the article explained that the majority of dating site users are women. The majority of these women also have no intention of ever actually meeting any of their admirers. While this certainly reduces the chances of said women becoming the next centrepiece on a hysterical 48 Hours special, it really raises a lot of questions. Apparently, most of these women also already have boyfriends; these women are doing it because they have a need for someone to tell them they are pretty. Their boyfriends don't do it because North American society mandates that for Attractive Male X to seduce Attractive Female Y, he must be discourteous and neglectful to demonstrate his masculinity.

Bear with me, this really is going somewhere.

The second article was describing the deleterious effects of hyper-parenting on youth entering the work force. People of my generation are spending more time in school, and relying on their parents far more than in the past. The article described a few extreme cases where parents actually conducted the pay negotiations for their children.

Fair disclosure- My father helps me quite a bit with things that are financial, and things that involve tools. I can do home repair, he's just so much better at it that I still like to have his help. Not to mention the fact that my father and I both lead busy lives, so fixing the floor that I damaged by improperly installing a washing machine can be some good father/son time. As to the finances, essentially the help I get from my father falls into the "making life better for the next generation" category. Should my father immediately stop assisting or guiding me financially, I would not be cast into ruin. I would be renting a home rather than owning one, and I would be driving a used vehicle instead of a new one. My financial health would be significantly reduced, but I would by no means be destitute.

What the article in the Globe was describing, however, was a significant sector of society with exaggerated senses of entitlement and worth, and completely atrophied senses of obligation and responsibility. The culture of hyper-parenting had led to a group that had been praised as genius for accomplishing merely what is expected of any functional human. I know of many people my age who had their entire lives scheduled into oblivion so that their parents could keep up with the Joneses in terms of maintaining the illusion that their child was a multifunctional prodigy. It isn't that my parents deprived me of social activities, it's that my schedule made sense. I had one weeknight activity (usually sport-related), one weekend activity (at first religious, but as I got better at my sport it became tournaments), and every now and then I would pick up a third activity that would last a few weeks, like a school play. Managing my time was my own responsibility: while my parents certainly encouraged me to study or do my assignments, there was little or no coercion. As my report cards can show, I frequently learned painful lessons on scheduling and prioritizing my work.

So where do the two articles overlap? Well, we have a generation that in significant numbers is not capable of functioning independently, nor does it desire to. From day one, my peers have been told that they are unique and precious snowflakes, deserving of high praise and special treatment, and most importantly superior to all other snowflakes. Take a look again at the dating sites, and insert the bizarre tendency youth now has of sending nude photos across unsecure means. These are women, and men, who will literally do anything to maintain the status quo of having someone tell them they are special. Is it any wonder that my generation buys in so easily to cheap rhetoric peddling nebulous concepts of social justice? I get blank looks when I tell people that Canada's healthcare system is, in my opinion, unjust. I explain that I consider it to be fundamentally unjust for the government to force me to pay for services rendered to someone else. Should I feel obligated by my conscience to help the poor, I can do so on my own, more effectively because I don't have to create a Department of Distributing Largesse to the Unproductive. I point out that it is unjust to inflict an inefficient and ineffective system on 320 million Americans who have good healthcare and are happy with it for the sake of the 30 million who do not. I point out that the core ideas that permeate the Progressive Left are in effect Communist, and that the Soviet Union proved irrefutably that debasing the majority to ensure there is no underprivileged majority is in fact heinous and merely produces an underprivileged whole. Capitalism, the favourite punching bag of modern intelligentsia, has produced the only societies in history where the general populace has a standard of living and disposable income so high that they can literally pay to rebuild another country devastated by disaster once every five years. (Ethiopian famine, tsunami victims, Haiti fifteen years ago and today, etc.). If capitalism is so evil, then why is it that the medical problems in capitalist countries are related to an excess of necessary items, rather than the standard deficiencies? My father likes to say that unfettered capitalism is truly a great evil, and I do not disagree. I do disagree on who should make the fetters; he approaches it with a classical liberal (as in small, responsible government) bent, and I maintain a philosophically Libertarian position. Deck chairs on the Titanic, as far as the average liberal is concerned.

The point though, is that my father and I could argue for hours with my peers and accomplish nothing, quite simply because failure and direct challenges are totally foreign concepts. I should agree with them, because as everyone has always said, they are brilliant. In effect, their whole lives have become one giant intellectual echo chamber. I get scorn because I read the National Post, and Mark Steyn. But how am I the closed-minded one when I also read the Globe and Mail, and read Rick Salutin (even though he drives me crazy)? The same people who despise people for watching Fox News are those who take the CBC as gospel. Something about pots and kettles comes to mind (and arguing about degree of bias really is rearranging deck chairs on a sinking ship).

My general point is that the political behaviour of my generation is totally explicable, and depressingly predictable. The average Ontario university graduate can be counted on to be a collectivist, if not outright statist, who feels every identity group (except white males) should get a piece of the pie but has no idea how to bake one. They want to change the world, but can't change a tire. You see where I'm going with this. The infantilization of the Citizen by an overreaching state is merely the nationalized expression of the infantilization of the individual by a culture of hyper-parenting.

Not every twenty-something is a spoiled peacock; just the majority of the ones who are political.

Haïti

2010-02-01T22:04:00.005-05:00

Haïti, as I'm sure every human being on the planet is aware, suffered a catastrophic earthquake that destroyed what little infrastructure kept the country from complete chaos. One cannot deny the depth and gravity of the human suffering there, and the generosity of average Canadians is truly humbling. However, three things have come to the surface of my thought as the coverage of the crisis continued.

Firstly, North Americans have developed an unpleasant fascination with the suffering of others, especially if they quite frankly are a visible minority. Since the current iteration of human society values non-violent and humane virtues, there seems to be a new and repugnant need for spectacle. It is considered too barbarous to display an appreciation for combat (can you imagine university professors discussing the last UFC fight?) therefore, we have sought a new arena to be seen doing something "impressive". Charity has in effect become a spectacle. During the crisis, we were inundated with footage of starving, filthy Haïtians. The commercial breaks were almost entirely the perversely sympathetic works of World Vision, and the like. Some argue that the visceral imagery is needed to shock people to action. If this were true, why do we need to see new footage every year? Simply stating that the problem remains would do. It strikes me as particularly self-centred, culturally speaking, that CNN had reporters on the ground in Haïti before the US Marines could begin deploying food aid. I assure you, the US Marines are almost as good as our DART at delivering aid, and they have more, bigger, and faster ways of getting it there. It speaks ill of our society that we are so desperate to see the suffering of others that we are better at getting footage of them starving than we are at feeding them.

Secondly, the pious preaching of celebrities in this "time of crisis" further irritated me. Bono and his gang are always on hand to tell us to give generously, as we have much and others have so little. Though I do not practice the Roman Catholic religion as assiduously as I once did, even the most hardened atheist can admit the value of "have much, give much, have little, give little". The last time I checked, Canadians had given in excess of 60 million dollars. According to Wikipedia, Angelina Jolie's net worth is 175 million. Assuming she takes a poor investment strategy and only earns 5% interest a year, Angelina alone could give 8.75 million dollars and still be rich enough to buy what's left of Port au Prince. Do I expect the rich to give everything they have to every cause that comes along? Of course not; as a libertarian I believe the rich have earned their right to live high on the hog. Just don't expect me to tolerate self-righteous sermonizing with good grace. Bill Gates, however, remains exempt from my wrath. His business savvy and humanitarian instincts have created a fine charitable foundation. People could learn a lot from him.

Finally, we are not addressing the fundamental problem. In a harsh, and obviously hyperbolic, twitter post, RightGirl on January 15th said "News report says Haiti "teeters on the brink of anarchy". How the [REDACTED] is that a change from LAST Friday??" I can't say I approve of her tone, but she raises an interesting point. Haïti has been at the mercy of the "global community" since the Americans stopped invading to protect their interests. The UN and who knows how many NGOs have been permanently working to improve the lot of Haïtians for a couple of decades now. What did we get for it? A country, built on a geologically unstable island, that hadn't the most basic of building codes. Even the Presidential Palace collapsed. In a country famous for corrupt, embezzling presidents. Not to be snide, but you would think if you were soaking your entire country for years, and at risk of violent overthrow, you would build a more solid palace. I think African despots will have a hard time taking Caribbean seriously after this. So for all the millions we pour into this country, what are we going to get? The Dominican Republic is on the same island, and hasn't gone begging. They're hardly wealthy, and yet they are dealing with the fallout themselves. I don't know enough about the region to tell you what the difference is, but it is worth investigating.

What I do know is this; if the residents of a country ravaged by an earthquake, and on the verge of total social collapse, complain about the speed at which international largesse is distributed, they have clearly become too dependent on others doing their work for them. It may be cliché, but I think it's time we stop giving them fish and hand them the nets.

Back! And more Able to Post

2010-01-21T17:34:00.004-05:00

Yes, my one or two loyal readers will be delighted to discover I now have internet in my home. Which means more commentary as available.

So let's talk about what's on everyone's mind: the election of Scott Brown to the US Senate. Naturally, the best coverage came from Stacy McCain, at his new site. Lots of good analysis all around, and I must say- the Daily Caller doesn't suck. Sorry, Mr. McCain. I know you dislike Tucker Carlson.

So what can yours truly add to the discussion? A Canadian perspective, naturally. What does Scott Brown's election mean to those of us on this side of the 49th? It's a tired old saw in Canadian politics that parties run elections from the wings, and govern from the centre. It's generally true. Conservative (CPC) policies are very similar to Liberal (LPC) policies, which is why in the grand scheme our parties tend to win based on the popularity of the Leader. They make their promises and then get judged on how well they keep them. Mr Harper is currently beating the snot out of Mr Ignatieff because we know exactly what he stands for and what he will do. He'll play fast and loose with procedure to get what he wants. Mr Ignatieff? He vacillates too much to pin down. Better the devil you know, etc.

What does this have to do with Mr Obama? Everything. Mr Obama prided himself on being "the screen onto which Americans project their dreams". He was the all things to all people candidate. He overwhelmed the youth vote because quite frankly my age group is about optics, as we have little to no experience with reality. This was a great election strategy, because all groups felt some connection to the candidate. But it's a one shot deal. You see, once it comes time to govern, you simply cannot be all things to all people. Mr. Obama has made the error of placating the people who will vote for him anyway. His promises of transparency? Well, a Christmas day senate vote puts that one down. How about disagreeing without being disagreeable? Mocking a candidate because he likes trucks is fairly disagreeable. I'm not even going to get into the idiocy that is his healthcare bill, except to say that it almost killed Bill Clinton, so what makes him think it's safe for him?

The vast majority of any democratic public generally wants politicians to leave them alone. Reasonable taxes, a responsible elected body, and some decent services. Yes, healthcare is an issue in America. But it is not an excuse to dramatically transform all aspects of society. Let's list a few policy blunders: Americans are kind of bi-polar about sex. On TV? Absolutely. In schools? Forget it. I checked out some of the "textbooks" the ironically named Safe Schools Czar wants published, and even I blushed. And I'm very nearly a Libertine even by Canadian standards. How about Homeland Security? The handling of the Fort Hood Shooting? Yes, calling veterans terrorists at a time when pretty much every middle class American has a relative in the military was a brilliant move. Or the Undie-Bomber? Yes, the system works, except when it doesn't. What's the budget for brave Dutch tourists this year? And let us not forget that Canada, major supplier of your oil, comedians and flexible multilingual troops is now considered to be equally suspect to Mexico, the provider of most of your illegal immigrants and drugs. Not to mention the pathetic job the administration has done vetting any of its candidates for anything

The point is this- people voted for Mr Obama, and his democrats, out of anger at the status quo and because they didn't really know exactly where on the political spectrum Obama fell. Maybe they were hoping he didn't fall anywhere; a new era and all that. Now we all know he is firmly, and distantly, on the left. His rhetoric is no longer impressive, and what could have been forgiven as inexperience is now seen as incompetence.

Making independents angry is bad, and Mr Obama has done it. Making people in your own party angry enough to switch sides is bad, and the DNC is doing it daily. Doing both? Well, 2010 should be an interesting year.

Aiport Kabuki Theatre Gets a Little More Interesting

2009-12-27T17:47:00.003-05:00

So, what do we know? Apparently, a Nigerian man sews a complex liquid/powder explosive device into his underwear, and airport security reacts with a fresh set of restrictions.

-Only one carry-on bag.
-Nothing in your lap and no moving around in the last hour before landing
-Getting searched again before actually boarding the flight.

Also, apparently, despite the fact that he claims Al-Qaeda ties, he is just one crazy man and the "system works".

I understand that not everyone has had the education I have. If you want to bone up, without listening to Robert Spencer rant about Christendom (no offense, Mr Spencer, but your excellent work does often have a faint tinge of zealotry), try The Combating Terrorism Center. Good stuff in there. But to return to my point, a couple of facts need to be addressed.

If you claim to speak for Al-Qaeda, as long as you hate infidels, you speak for Al-Qaeda.

One of the concepts Al-Qaeda, and the wider jihadi community, has stolen from the White Supremacist movement is the old Lone Wolf terrorist idea. White supremacists realized that concrete organization led to being infiltrated and exposed, so instead they started publishing literature to spread their philosophy. Inherent in the literature were instructions on how to legally acquire weapons training and explosives expertise. Also, the fictional heroes of the movement acted out of their own initiative and fervour. Lionizing individual action led to a concrete strategic advantage: the supremacists could praise the actions of an individual without actually being legally implicated. Timothy McVeigh is a perfect example. The whole point is that self-identification is the only requirement for membership, so long as you adhere to the philosophy.

Al-Qaeda calls it "Leaderless Jihad". Since Jihad is the obligation of all members of the Ummah, according to the Sheiks, any member of the Ummah who engages in Jihad is in effect a member of Al-Qaeda. No need for secret decoder rings, or logistical support. If the attack succeeds, Al-Qaeda issues a statement calling him a brave martyr; if it fails he is merely a lone nut "misinterpreting Islam".

Ergo, lone Nigerian trying to blow himself up claims to speak for Al-Qaeda. The US Government fails to find a paper trail because he never physically contacted Al-Qaeda. This is irrelevant. If he so much as read a pamphlet at Mosque, he was contacted, and de facto a member. All without an irritating paper trail which allows closed-minded law enforcement officials to interfere.

Why I use Ezra Levant's Term

Kabuki theatre, as I understand it, is the celebration of physical buffoonery in otherwise serious society. The point is that it is all show, and no substance. It's fun, and relaxing. Ezra Levant calls the security measures "Airport Kabuki Theatre" because most of the measure are in effect just about show, and getting people to feel safer rather than be safer. There is no substance to it. Also, it's a bit of dry wit, as all travelers can attest that airport security is no fun at all. Admittedly, some of the security features DO make life safer. Bomb sniffers, metal detectors, etc. However, because airport security gets about the same training as your average bank security guard (if they're lucky), rules become arbitrary. Easier to change traveler behaviour than retrain the guards. So grandmothers lose knitting needles, and 6'2, 185 pound, 23 year old men get put into a room with a single 90 pound girl because his laptop was suspicious.I'm sure you can see how this does little to protect us.

This Nigerian fellow didn't even have any forged documents. Imagine if he had? Imagine if he had been a Chechen jihadist (not so keen on martyrdom, and much better trained).

Oh, and before I forget. This Nigerian fellow's plot? Apparently foiled by a fellow traveler. Good work, Ms Napolitano. Another job well done.

It's been a While

2009-12-22T14:20:00.002-05:00

..But I'm momentarily back. Work keeps me busy. A quick roundup: Copenhagen fails- all shocked and appalled. Senate manages cloture on healthcare- normal americans understandably upset. Not much new on the Jihad Front, but really you should be checking Jihad Watch for that.

What to say about Copenhagen? Well, Climategate was an obvious spike to the wheel. Unsurprisingly, many environmentalists claim it means nothing. One of my own friends mentioned that he would rather err on the side of halting global climate change and find out it wasnt necessary, or even possible. Fun. You enjoy your healthy serving of tyranny in the name of "well, it might happen, and we have a minuscule change of stopping it anyway". More irritating to Ezra Levant's "severely normal" people was the hypocrisy. 1200 odd limousines flown in for the summit? Not one on California emission standards, I'll bet. And as far as I know, the most popular and inexpensive freight planes in Europe are Antonovs. So you have a diesel-devouring military cargo plane flying gas-guzzling limos to overpaid diplomats debating... reducing consumption to save the planet. But it's OK- we can do what Diane Francis wants and limit ourselves to 1 child, nevermind that replacement is 2.1. But that's more Mark Steyn's gig than mine.

On to the Senate. Cloture, as I understand it, is the finalization of a Bill so that it has to be voted on as is. One more lumbering step for the Juggernaut/Abomination that is the Healthcare bill. Even leftist groups are distancing themselves from it, as the only thing worse than bad legislation is Poorly Written Bad Legislation. I'm looking forward to the 2010 midterms.

That's enough for now, more to come once I get internet in my house. In parting, a special thanks to Monique Stuart, who keeps me in her blogroll despite my sporadic posting. I'm sure it has nothing to do with how much easier it is to leave things alone than delete them. Enjoy the snow, Monique, and do what my DC friends do; claim it's too dangerous to go to work so you can hit the pub and make drunken snowmen!

The purpose of Political Correctness

2009-11-15T17:59:00.004-05:00

Recently, much has arisen to make me want to write. Two stand out in my mind, frankly. Firstly, our culture's mass cowardice regarding Mr. Hasan (whom I deliberately strip of rank, as befits a traitor and a murderer) and the continued folly of the Copenhagen summit. Both are cases of imprecision of language being enforced so as to prevent an informed public.

Firstly: Many Muslims state that their religion does not condone the murder of innocents. Many Muslims even have the same definition of "innocent" as Western Law. The truth remains, however, that Islam has very broad definitions of guilt. As an atheist, I find many religions amusing in their obsession over minor details. As a former Catholic, I know all about religious guilt. As a student of philosophy, and world religions, I can tell you that Islam is distinct. You see, other religions deal with politics in one of two ways: some variation of "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's", or to label it as an impediment to be overcome on the route to Paradise. Islam alone labels political victory as a precondition of universal salvation. As in, universal salvation will only exists when "universal" means that everyone is Muslim, or dhimmi (look it up).

So what does this have to do with language? It should be blindingly obvious. Our inability to express openly that Hasan's actions were deliberately linked to his religion makes us cowards. If a lunatic Christian were to shoot up a Base because of certain passages in Revelations, the world would spend weeks decrying Christianity. Media pundits would stare gravely into the camera and demand answers from the Pope. Fine. My turn.

Sheiks of Al-Azhar University in Cairo: I demand answers. Grand Ayatollahs of Iran: I demand answers. Why do so many break the law in the name of Allah? And if they are perverting your religions, what are you going to do to stop them? Dar Al-Islam is your house: clean it, or have it be condemned and razed by the families of victims. When it comes to Jihadism, your silence implies consent.

Secondly, the global ecological movement is playing a similar game. The science is settled, they say. Anyone who resists will be assimilated... I mean re-educated...I mean ignored as governments pass laws that no one voted on. The calls for eco-action are growing ever more urgent, and shrill. Has it occurred to no one that perhaps, before attempting something so massive as regulating the global climate, a few more years of study wouldnt be amiss? Don't get me wrong, pushing for tighter controls on known pollutants, and getting more energy efficient is not a bad thing. Enforcing a global theocracy in the name of debatable claims, however... Political correctness again prevents anyone from speaking the obvious: human existence takes priority over everything. The climate was permanently altered when the first human to build fire did so to stay warm. The Gates of Eden are shut, and no amount of self-flagellation or enforced suffering will open them again. Even if the environmentalists could prove that by privation and ascetic living, humanity could reconstruct a sylvan wonderland, I would say no. I would resist. Societal advancement has come at a cost, yes, but it remains advancement. If we were all bust foraging for our sustainable families in our eco-friendly huts, no one would have the time or ability to paint the Sistin Chapel. Rodin's Gates of Hell wouldn't evoke. Josh Groban's voice would be reserved for bellowing to other hunters that he found a particularly tasty patch of moss, or lamenting over friends lost to eminently preventable illness. Does it not seem odd that those living "closest to Gaia" are the ones trying hardest to rise above? Tell an impoverished Swahili tribesman that his life is superior to Average Joe in Anywhere, Ontario. Tell the Chinese peasant that his sweat and misery are sacred. Tell the Rickshaw cabbie in Thailand that Al Gore envies him. They will do what they always do; shake their heads at the madness of Westerners, and go back to trying to make the world a better place for his family.

The Gates of Eden are shut. Dry your eyes, and see a world that can be a better Paradise. Then get to work.

Continued Absenteeism and Musings

2009-10-31T15:21:00.002-04:00

I can only imagine at this point that my readership must be zero. Alas. Anyway, sporadic updates will be forthcoming. When I feel like it. Life comes first, as always.

For those of you not in the know, you should head over to The Other McCain for some truly excellent reportage on the NY-23rd. It really does look to be a watershed moment in American politics. If I may, I'd like to give an outsider's perspective on it. The fact of the matter is that American politics have never officially been two-party, but in effect it has evolved as such. Canadian politics has always been a game of balance of power. While not to the coalition-building degree of other parliamentary democracies, Canadian parties require the assistance of other parties to get things done. Majority Governments, while gaining a majority of seats, almost never have a majority of the vote. Thus the continued existence, and dare I say relevance, of the NDP and more importantly the Bloc Québécois. What Doug Hoffman may be creating is a crucial Third Party in the US. The Northeastern wing of the Republican party is packed with RINOs, it really is. Understandably, conservative voters continue to vote Republican because the NRCC and NRSC keep feeding them garbage about electability and moderation.

It's crap.

Here in Canada, we had the Reform Party. They went from a marginal voice in the wilderness party, decrying the lack of true conservatism, to the driving force of the ruling party. This is not to say that Alberta Reformers drive policy. The Conservative Party of Canada still governs to the left of their hardest workers. While not ideal, they still govern firmly to the right of previous parties. Reformers, over a period of about 10 years, managed to drag the faltering Conservative movement back to the right where it belongs. This is the real opportunity Hoffman in the NY-23rd represents. The Tea-Party/Conservative movement needs to hold out. Resist the urge to be folded into the Republican party. If the Republicans keep going the way they are going, their leadership will suffer the same fate as Joe Clark. Elect your representatives. Start nibbling away at RINO seats. Steal from the Blue Dogs. I can guarantee you, if over 2 or 3 electoral cycles, Americans start seeing representatives with the tag (C-NY) and (C-AZ) and even (C-CA), the Republican party will sit up and take notice.

So Stacy, listen up- from a man who grew up with no conservative alternative to having voted for the first real Conservative in power since 1954- keep following the Hoffmans. Use your connections to encourage charismatic new conservatives to run against Republicans. It will pay off. One day, the DNC will wake up and realize that they aren't facing an elephant anymore; a tiger will be at the door.

Apologies, and Musings

2009-09-29T18:18:00.002-04:00

Gentle readers (if you still exist), I apologize for being absent so long. Between moving, and a new course, I have been out of touch for quite a while. It would be pointless for me to try to jump right back into the scene, so instead I will do a bit of a musing roundup. There are a few issues which have caught my attention over these past few weeks, and deserve some attention even in passing.

Obama-Care: As I seem to have no access to "real media", I have no idea what propaganda the Televised President has been spouting. What I do know, however, is that the Democratic Congress has catastrophically overreached in their almost religious desire to ram a new health system down the collective American gullet. Frankly, it comes as no surprise to me that the Dems have ignored two crucial issues. The first, of course, being that the vast majority (between 60 and 80 percent, according to Rasmussen last I heard) of Americans are happy with their health care, which is why President Obama repeats that they can keep it. This is patently false, as in general it is employers that select health care providers. Employers can get more reasonable rates because they get large groups insured at the same time. Provide employers an opportunity to offload that cost to the taxpayer at large by offering a public option, and even if it isn't mandatory you can bet private insurers will get burned. Secondly, the Dems have underestimated just how furious the average American is that illegal immigrants will not be explicitly excluded from this option. The average American knows that the Hippocratic Oath means that even under the most ruthlessly capitalist plan, a Mexican migrant worker bleeding out from a lawn mower accident will get emergency care. What offends them is that this same worker can get pre- and post-natal care for his illegal children, asthma medication, and in some states even psychiatric care without paying taxes. The Dems are going to take a beating in the 2010 Congressionals.

Big Brother is Still Watching- Apparently, the Obama administration can't get enough of being invasive. First there was the "fishy" incident, then the interference with local policing. Now? Apparently the White House wants to be a Facebook/Twitter Nanny. Well, Mr Axelrod, you have my permission to Suck It. I'm Canadian, and I say your socialist President has gotten into the nasty habit of compiling lists and getting people to Name Names. Eerily familiar, no?

Apparently, Even Blacks are Racist if they Dislike Euro-style Mega-Government- Accuse the President of lying? You're a racist. Disagree with his policies because you think that government is generally a wasteful morass? Racist. Find the President's constant presence on the airwaves exactly the opposite of reassuring (shouldn't the man, I don't know, be executing his office perhaps)? Oooh, looks like you have a nasty case of racist. And if you're black? Well, you must be a self-loathing Uncle Tom. Funny that everyone is trying so desperately to protect the President from hurt feelings, while accusing Republicans of lowering the tone of the debate. You would think they would have done the same when a President with many Jewish friends and supporters was being compared to Hitler. Oh, no wait, he was white. Also, when ACORN activists were using government money to teach pimps how to run brothels and escape IRS attention, it was all in the name of a more accurate (read: pro-Dem) census.

And I haven't even started on the latest capitulations to Jihadism. I'm reading "Surrender" by Bawer right now. It makes me sad. Who will stand for freedom when America doesn't?

Dear Mr McCain

2009-08-19T21:21:00.001-04:00

Sir,

I found your recent commentary on David Frum insightful and honest, as usual. However, your closing argument was in effect an ad hominum attack based on Frum's Canadian nationality. As a man of impeccable honour, I am sure you understand completely when I say that I take umbrage.

I remember clearly the horror and rage that swept our communities the day the towers came down. Since that day, army recruiting (previously anemic) has grown to the point that training centres are housing candidates in tents for lack of barracks. This hasnt happened since WW2. In an army with approximately 12k combat troops, we have almost 3k in theatre, another 4k supporting them domestically and another 5k training. Most canadian soldiers, in a ten year contract have hit afghanistan four to six times. our troops, chronically underfunded and underequipped, have held the back gate for you in a land that ate three british armies of a kind that would have ended your revolution, and so frightened Alexander's army that it turned back. Our best have bled and suffered for you, with the same blend of insane courage and indomitable humour that kept our nations bonded in Korea and the fields of Europe. For all the draft dodgers we housed, remember that 30k Canadians volunteered for Vietnam. Visit the Wall in DC again. You will find small Canadian flags planted at its base wherever one of our fallen is listed.

David Frum is a pretentious blowhard, deserving of ridicule and public shaming. He is as much, if not more, of a blight on Right-thinking Canadians as he is on Americans. He has no right to question the fervour of any American's response to 9/11. However, it is his personality that drives his vitriol. Canada is no more responsible for his lunacy than America is for David Brooks.

I remain your humble servant in the Wilderness,

Morgan

Big Brother Really Is Watching You

2009-08-13T12:51:00.003-04:00

(H/T Brass Balls Radio Episode 61)

For those of you not in the know, President Obama has set up a new White House email server to track those spreading "disinformation" on his new healthcare plan. He asked that anyone who sees "fishy" activity report it to flag@whitehouse.gov. Nice. Aside from his obvious discrimination against fish (do I report Crustaceous activity? The dilemma!), there are some serious legal issues with this. The White House as an entity MUST keep a record of all communications in or out. However, the White House is strictly forbidden from compiling information on those who disagree with its policies. Oops. Smart move there, ol' buddy. It's ok, though. The Wise Latina got confirmed, despite a 60% rate of failure as a judge. Somehow, barring Antonin Scalia going on a murderous rampage and assuming the role of SCOTUS Highlander style, I just don't think the White House is going to get spanked for this.

More important than the mechanical aspects of this, however, is the moral. President Obama has unilaterally declared that anyone spreading opposing points of view are actually agents of disinformation. It's "fishy", just like the peaceful protests at town halls are "Angry Mobs". The whole effort to demonize opposition seems to be getting desperate, and quite frankly ludicrous. Furthermore, President Obama is in effect asking people to Name Names. Doesn't it strike anyone as odd that the Democratic Party is using exactly the same tactics they've always accused Republicans of using? "Something must be done now or thousands will die of poor healthcare coverage"- the Politics of Fear, and false dichotomy. "My opponents are angry mobs spreading disinformation- or they are Nazis"- demonization of the opposition.

Interestingly enough, various Rasmussen polls have between 65 and 80 percent of Americans satisfied with the healthcare system as it currently stands. So in effect, we are going to punish 354 million Americans so that 46 million can have healthcare coverage. Except that at no point are these 46 million refused essential care because they can't pay. No one is lying on the sidewalk bleeding out as paramedics shake their heads and say "His credit didn't clear".

People always make the mistake of assuming that Capitalism isn't compassionate. This is patently false. Every poll administered, from the UN right on down to Gallup, has found that right wing Christian conservative Americans give on average at least twice as much of their income to charity as anyone else. Liberal Americans give next to nothing. Why? Because liberals think that charity is a government responsibility. But it is demonstrably true that dollar for dollar, government cannot give as much to charity as NGOs. Government inevitably has higher overhead, as they must create a Department of Charitable Works. Then it must be staffed, and stationery must be made. The staff will be unionized, so it has absurd sick days and wage rates. Meanwhile, a Methodist housewife donates 20 hours a week of her time on a rotating schedule with the rest of the ladies from the Parish council at the cost of...a couple of tins of instant coffee and a few boxes of cookies a month. The same thing applies to healthcare. Private sector health providers want to make money. Being efficient leads to making money. Doctors in private clinics do their own paperwork, nurses can also act as receptionists. They get paid by the hour, so they work longer. Meanwhile, at a public hospital, you have a unionized employee who does nothing but answer phones. The doctors work long hours because they are desperately understaffed, not because they want to. The janitors get paid as well if not more than the nurses.

Voluntary associations work better than government. Government healthcare is the epitome of Involuntary association. It. Doesn't. Work.

Killing mehsud not enough, but still a good start

2009-08-08T18:35:00.001-04:00

From the field ( brewbaker's in freddy)

Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud is probably dead. News wires are already speculating as to the impact of his death, and naturally the Taliban claim no pain. The truth is that his death's impact has yet to be determined. Mehsud was young and charismatic, which is both a strength and weakness. His power came from the narrative of his life. Now that it is over, others now control the story. Will he become a martyr?

For the jihadi, faith is everything. Victory as proof it it, and defeat as proof of its absence. For the coalition to claim a win, mehsud's narrative must read that his fsith was a sham and allah guided the hand of his enemy as punishment for all the civilians he killed. Perhaps its time the coalitipn started employing theologians for psyops.

Wait... Following the Law is Illegal?

2009-07-26T11:51:00.003-04:00

So I've been trying to follow the "coup" in Honduras. Why? Because I just love it when the democratically elected congress of Honduras, supported by both the Supreme Court and the Constitution decide to do whacky things like use the Army in its constitutionally mandated role to support the popular will and remove a threat to stability. It's all so cloak and dagger. Very Che.

Here's how it works: The Constitution in Honduras limits presidential power to a single term. The people, being wise Latinos, recognized that there is something in the Central and South American political psyche that leads to strong-man dictatorships. So, they rather cleverly decided to build in protections, like term limits and the smart choice not to allow military figures to hold power for even a single day. Then this Zelaya guy comes along, after winning by the skin of his teeth, and decides he needs more than one term to accomplish his social agenda (and presumably attend more cocktail parties at his buddy Hugo's place). The Supreme Court notifies him that it is unconstitutional. So he tries to get Congress to change the constitution. Not only does Congress refuse, but they point out the Constitution actually explicitly forbids constitutional amendments regarding term limits. So Zelaya tries to hold a plebiscite, which the Supreme Court declares an illegal action (mainly because the President doesn't have that authority, Congress does and they weren't playing ball). Now the President decides that the law doesn't really apply to him, and he (this is my favourite part) publicly tells the Supreme Court and Congress that he is going to do what he needs to in order to stay in power anyway. He also gets Hugo Chavez to give him a ringing endorsement. Green Berets worldwide perked up like dogs hearing that silent whistle, and started lacing up the old jungle boots. But, darn it all, before those big bad Americans could start another jungle civil war, the Hondurans dealt with it themselves. Congress, in an emergency session, invoked the Constitution yet again (seeing a theme here?) and used the Army to arrest the President. They then voted in an interim President, and started getting ready for an election. Here's the weird part: rather than summarily executing Zelaya, as is the usual practice, they hustle him in his PJs onto a plane for Costa Rica. I bet Isabelle Allende is pissed.

And yet, somehow, this is a coup! It's bad! The will of the people, and the Law have been broken. Why? Because Barack Obama said so. The cognitive dissonance of having to agree with a US President must be making Chavez's head explode.

So, to summarize, the legitimately elected Congress of Honduras, in accordance with the Constitution, used the Army in a limited police action to prevent de facto dictatorship. And the "Free World" is pressuring them to take Zelaya back. It's almost like an Arnie movie...

The Tyranny that is Public Healthcare

2009-07-22T16:50:00.004-04:00

Well, dear readers, it's time for yet another reader request. This one is for you, DJ!

I'll begin with a personal anecdote. In my final year of college, 48 days to graduation for those who know what it means, I was engaged in my last fencing practice of the year. Our team had just won the OUA championships, and we were out for some final fun before we parted ways for the summer. One of my younger teammates, Oli, wanted one last match. I had already half stripped out of my gear, but you don't get to be a sabre medallist by refusing challenges. We weren't fighting that hard, just the comfortable friendly strife of old opponents, when my left kneecap dislocated. It wasn't Oli's fault; I was executing a standard dodge (the pass short) tha I had done thousands of times before. The uneven gym floor, the dust, the fact that my IT bands were overdeveloped: all these were contributing factors. Suffice to say, it's a frighteningly agonizing injury. Regardless, we called the ambulence.

For those of you not aware of how the Canadian system works, you just call an ambulence, it shows up, it takes you to the hospital, and you flash your public health insurance card. Supposedly fast and foolproof. I'm a bit of a special case, but that part doesn't change (I just notify my employer, and somewhere in Ottawa the cost of my treatment goes from one budget to another). Unfortunately, due to the inherent inefficiencies of government run ANYTHING, my simple knee dislocation happened to fall on a shift change. Due to budget shortfalls, the City of Kingston shared EMS with the Leeds and Grenville County EMS, who use smaller ambulences. And are not totally familiar with Kingston geography. Thus, my ambulence took 20 minutes to find me (even though I was literally a 20 minute walk from the hospital). When it arrived, the paramedics were exhausted and at the end of an 18 hour shift, with 2 hours to drive to get back to their home station. Their ambulence stocked painkillers from their home station, not the hospital, so when they got to me there was literally nothing left but pure morphine, which can only be administered in cases where the pain might cause someone to die. While driving me back to the hospital, they took a couple of wrong turns, so it took 15 minutes to get back. And their oxygen tank ran dry after 5. Don't get me wrong- they were competent and caring paramedics. They were just exhausted and abused by a system that doesn't work.

When I got to the hospital, it took 4 hours to be seen by a student doctor specializing in oncology, who put me in a splint that actually made my injury worse. I was x-rayed to ensure no bone damage, but there were no MRI machines available. It took 6 and a half months to get an MRI, and that was rushed because my job gets a higher priority than the average bear. And here's the kicker: all hospital MRIs were overbooked, so I went to a PRIVATE CLINIC in Halifax.

I once visited a buddy of mine in Philly, and stayed at some guest housing that happened to be in a hospital outbuilding. I discovered that there are more MRI machines in the city of Philadelphia than there are in my entire country. Population of Philadelphia? 1.5 Million. Population of Canada? 32+ Million. And you're telling me that somehow the economics of a single payer government controlled system will ensure fair healthcare for everyone? It's garbage. Canada had a comparable death rate from SARS to Namibia. The head of the Canadian Medical Association put an article in the National Post on how healthcare in Canada desperately needs reform. Health Canada itself actually put out a statement telling people that if they get sick, they should go to hospitals. Why? Because a common-sense model accounting for hospital overcrowding (and based on the SARS data) showed that if the Bird Flu became an epidemic, people should stay home and let doctors come to them, because going to the hospital increased your risk of fatal infection.

Americans love to quote statistics. The last one I can remember stated that 50 million people in the US have no healthcare coverage at all. That truly is tragic, and something should be done. But not by government. The ingenuity of the free individual is the solution. Corporations provide healthcare to their workers because it makes them more productive. The competitive environment ensures reasonable pricing. Everyone claims that in Canada, healthcare is free. That is also garbage. Talk to me when you start earning more than 55 thousand dollars a year in Quebec. And you end up paying 49.3% of your income in taxes, not including sales tax or gas tax. Then talk to me about how an inefficient, criminally negligent system is still better because "it's free".

As Promised, Why Fat People Piss Me Off

2009-07-18T10:39:00.003-04:00

Believe it or not, this is actually related to culture and politics. Max, enjoy.

In our culture today, like no other time in history, we have fat people. I'm not talking jolly, rotund, pleasantly plump. I'm not talking your Italian grandparents, or your comfortable middle-aged retired factory worker. Carrying around a few extra pounds at a certain age is part of the human condition.

I'm talking people who need mechanical support to get around. I'm talking young women who walk around in spandex that is audibly weeping. You know when you bend one of those cheap forks at Harvey's, and the black plastic turns white from stress? I've seen that happen to pleather pants.

Aside from the obvious aesthetic problems, why do I hate fat people so much? It's because they are the expression of cultural weakness. The inability to master your body, or at least hold it in check, is a symptom of your inability to become an adult. Our whole society is centred on removing as much responsibility from the equation as possible. Eat too much McDonald's? It's ok, the government will regulate the size of the portions they can serve you. Heaven forbid that you should just choose to eat there less frequently, or even more unthinkably exercise more to make up for your grease intake. In our society, addiction is always someone else's fault. Whatever happened to individual willpower? I love the hashbrowns at McD's. Love them. Could spend days eating them. There is a McDonald's on my way to work. It would be easy, so easy to eat breakfast there every day. It would actually be about the same price, too, considering the price of milk and cheese and eggs (I like to cook a decent breakfast). And yet, I get up an extra half hour early, make my breakfast, put in a lunch bag, and go to work. Luckily for me, work involves a morning workout. I eat my breakfast at my desk, and indulge in some coffee.

All this to say that I made a choice. I accepted responsibility for my own body, and what goes into it. I'm not perfect, but I don't need a government agency or ad campaign to tell me that too many burgers makes Morgan a fat boy. Tragically, and contemptibly, many people do. I had an interesting conversation with an attractive older woman at the bar last night. She is a cancer survivor, and she found it unthinkable that I should be against government healthcare. I told her it's simple. I know my drinking will lead to illness or injury inevitably. If the government provides my healthcare, it also has the right to tell me when and how I can drink. I didn't agree to this; in Canada it is fait accompli. I would rather live 60 years as a free individual than 80 years as a serf. Serfdom in Canada is leisurely and not unpleasant physically, but it is still serfdom.

Fat people have embraced serfdom. It's weakness. Worse still, it is weakness being actively supported and enacted by the benevolent tyranny that is the nanny-state. And they aren't even resisting. After all, I doubt they have the endurance for even that much activity.

Sufficient Causes for Evil, Small-Scale and Large

2009-07-11T16:30:00.003-04:00

As an addendum to the tale of hurt feelings from last week, I have yet another cultural point to make. This weekend, I was recounting my story of publicly calling out a woman for poor behaviour to another beautiful woman of my acquaintance. She was horrified. She demanded to know what gave me the right to embarrass someone in public as I had. I made some small effort to explain that once you are in public, you can be called out for poor behaviour, but my acquaintance would have none of it. She got hostile to the point that she demanded that I leave. I politely made my farewells and left, thoroughly dissappointed.

What gave me the right? First of all, we were in public. Your behaviour in public must adhere to certain standards. If you behave in an offensive manner, you should expect that someone will be offended. I was offended by the Queen Bee's callous treatment of her friend. Rather than whisper behind her back, or go to some "higher authority", as the petty grievance-mongers do, I addressed the issue head on. What gave me the right? Decisions are made by those who show up. I was present. That was right enough for me to speak my mind. I am an autonomous human being with the courage to speak my mind. Secondly, the fact that the Queen Bee was embarrassed does not make me the oppressor in this situation. If I had deliberately embarassed her out of a sense of malice by pointing out something not tied to her behaviour, then yes I would have been wrong. However, I was (in my own harsh way) pointing out that her behaviour was unacceptable. It's very simple; if you do not want to be embarrassed in public, do not behave in a manner that can lead to embarrassment. More bluntly put, if being called a bitch in public embarrasses you, don't be a bitch in public.

The larger cultural point is that we live in a society where pointing out the truth is seen as secondary to avoiding conflict. We don't mention the hypocrisy of the Muslim world (rioting over the murder of one Muslim woman in Germany, while remaining silent over the deaths of thousands of Muslims in Darfur)* because we don't want conflict. We refuse to admit that there are concrete biological differences between men and women, because we don't want to offend feminists. Criticism of a politician is deflected by accusing the critic of being bigoted toward the identity group to which the politician belongs (Sarah Palin, Barack Obama. Both sides are guilty). Society begins to decay when we become so hide-bound by unspoken rules that the truth cannot be said. Janet Napolitano's bizarre jargon regarding terrorism is case in point. Eventually, through linguistic obfuscation, the truth becomes unrecognizable. Refusing to talk about something doesn't make it go away; it aggravates the underlying problem.

In both my personal issue with the Queen Bee, and the wider cultural point, one can return to an old adage. All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that a good man do nothing. A refusal to speak out is not only a permissive cause, but a sufficient cause to bad behaviour. The Queen Bee abused her male friends because no one ever called her out for it. Muslims in the Arab street continue to riot at the drop of a hat because no one has the courage to publicly denounce them for it. The absurdities of the "culture wars" raging around Sarah Palin and President Obama carry on because no one has the nerve to stand up to the shrieking masses who cry "bigot".

Civility is to be prized. Courtesy is a fine treasure. Honesty trumps both.

*Tarek Fatah, as always, earns my respect for pointing out this hypocrisy in a decent article in the National Post. Despite the fact that his honesty earns him death threats from other Muslims, one must temper the respect with the acknowledgment that as a member of a protected identity group, Fatah has an easier time speaking the truth. To date, a Human Rights Commission has never seriously investigated a member of a visible minority.

Slight Regression, but a Larger Cultural Point

2009-07-04T19:50:00.006-04:00

I know that I promised MITW would be less scandal oriented, but I swear this story is relevant.

Last night at the bar, I was bantering with a pretty blonde, and she had what my brother likes to call an "Orbiter". This man, like an asteroid or small moon, was caught by her gravitational field. Orbiters do all the things boyfriends do but get no sex, and more importantly no respect. This young woman threw out a particularly demanding whine at the fellow, and out of reflex I responded "dude, she is not hot enough to treat you like that". Everyone around me, and I really do mean EVERYONE looked at me like I had spat on the pope. For the next hour or so, a good friend of mine who is otherwise a cool dude kept badgering me to apologize to her because, and I quote "She's a big deal man. Well connected here".

To steal a line from R.S. McCain: Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot?!?

Seriously. Firstly, this is Fredericton. It's a small town, where everyone knows everyone. This young woman is well connected? That's really quite odd, as some of my friends are local business owners (including the owners of the club). Hell, my landlady brought the freakin' Premier of the Province to my birthday party! I know what well connected is. Whenever I hang out with well connected people, they introduce me to others of their kind. IE "Hey, Morgan you should meet XXXXX. He's the local RCMP section chief, good guy." Not once, in almost five years, have I been introduced to this young woman. She's not a person of interest in any way that matters. She is simply a beautiful woman, which segues nicely into:

Morgan's Third Law of Party: Beautiful Women Have Easy Lives. Cheerfully Correct This Whenever Possible!

That's right. I made this young woman's life just a little harder with a smile on my face. Anyone who ever got picked on in highschool can tell you that on the scale of emotional violence, my comment ranks somewhere around "Sorority Pillow Fight". So when she reacted with an almost overwhelming level of hostility, I understood what my friend was telling me. For your ease of understanding, "She's well connected" translates to "She's the queen bee; you may never get laid in this town again". Fair. The price I pay for my ideals.

I promised you a wider cultural point, so I will give it to you. Our society has adopted the Classical Greek philosophical addiction to beauty to a degree beyond all reason. Beauty earns a degree of tolerance unheard of by others. Celebrities at nightclubs (this generation's iteration of artists in Salons) get lenience directly proportionate to their beauty. Everyone's horror at my behaviour came from the cultural reaction that things that are beautiful are to be respected or obeyed.

Time to wake up, gentlemen. Despite my disdain for the Bible, I will quote it by saying now that we are men it is time to put away childish things. Respect is earned by BEHAVIOUR. I am no iron-willed stoic. I will admit that I like pretty things. I'll admit my baseline tolerance is a little higher. However, the death of masculinity is tolerance for poor behaviour. Children behave badly in public. Dogs ruin furniture. Beautiful celebrities get drunk and flash everyone. And it all gets tolerated because they're so cute/beautiful. Bite it. If you can't harden the %@$# up and discipline people who need it, don't expect to last long in a conversation with real people.

I. Will. Not. Apologize. For. Being. Right.
Pretty girls, you have been warned. I am a real man. Earn my respect by being a real woman.

Sarah Palin steps aside as Governor, Probably going to run for President

2009-07-04T12:37:00.004-04:00

The Other McCain has far superior coverage of this than I ever could. The thing I like best about McCain is that he is a genuine, old-school reporter. I'd love to see someone photoshop an image of him as the 20s style press man, complete with fedora and press card. I am also in agreement with him regarding his disdain for young journalism grads who demand recognition by virtue of writing skills.

So here is my caveat. I am not a reporter, nor am I claiming journalistic integrity. This analysis comes from my training in Politics, my time as a debater, and the logical training I have received from groups that will remain unnamed (read the disclaimer at the top, you should be able to figure it out). I recognize my disagreement is precocious. I invite any who disagree to attempt to reeducate me over cocktails in DC the next time I'm down.

That being said, I am going to risk the Blog-Sensei's wrath and that of the right-wing blogosphere by saying this:

Nominating Sarah Palin is a bad idea.

Allow me to enumerate my points before I get flayed (which will probably happen anyway). Firstly, and foremost in my mind, she is indelibly tied to failure. I challenge any of my American readers to find me a recent (last 30 years) candidate who has overcome the stigma of a previously failed ticket. From what I can see, the American body politic is unforgiving of failure. Unfair as it might be, the MSM will be able with great facility to equate Sarah Palin's policy with the idiocy that was the McCain campaign. Don't get me wrong, Palin may be able to gather and synthesize some great policy, but if no one know about it, what good will it do?

Secondly, Sarah Palin is too public. What do I mean by this? Essentially, Sarah Palin is already into the rough and tumble game of sparring with the media. She's had a spat with Letterman, she's been backstabbed by McCain campaign staff, and despite its patent silliness, the whole Trig thing just won't go away. The Republican party has been brutalized in the public sphere, and Sarah Palin was there when it happened. The grassroots are saying "Varus, give me back my Legions!" and Sarah Palin can offer nothing but the tattered standard of the survivor of a massacre. It doesn't matter that her own behaviour may have been exemplary. What is needed now is for a relative unknown to step in from the wings, and offer a narrative greater and more legitimate than President Obama's. The strength of the Republican grassroots has always been the claim to the "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" story. Sarah Palin had that chance, but blew it on the McCain '08 campaign. Every minute she has spent in the public eye since is another opportunity for lies and spin, and another obstacle to be overcome.

Finally, I will present my most personal reason for being uncomfortable with a Palin '12 ticket. She is far too similar to the standard Democratic candidate for my liking. I apologize to any fervent Palin fans out there, but I have yet to see any proof of a high-calibre mind. By no means is she an Obama-style stuffed shirt, but I just don't see the political killer instinct. The "Sarah Barracuda" claims are interesting, and a great story, but I just don't see the proof. Unfair a stage as it was, Palin was objectively and irretrievably annihilated in the Couric interview. Yes, I know that they were unfair questions, and yes I know that Palin's responses were logical and reasonable. My point is this: logical and reasonable are reinforcement, not the lead! They are the muscle in the arm, not the blade itself. Rhetoric is the blade, and it's edge must be viciously keen. Once you've pierced the liberal armour of ignorance, logic and reason give you the strength to reach the vitals. When Palin realized that Couric was doing a snow job, where was the attitude she had during her Convention speech? When someone mugs you, you don't politely hold them off. You beat the f*** so badly that when the police come, they need a paramedic with them. Or, failing that, you run. Palin sat there and took it. No dice. Until someone can prove otherwise, Palin's Convention speech, while magnificent, cannot really be credited to her as anything other than eloquent delivery.

In the tradition of my training, I will now do something unheard of in the land of snark. I have identified a problem, so it's only right that I should offer a solution. Try this out for a template for a better candidate than Palin:

Somewhere in the Mid-West, there is a mother of 3 who is involved in low-level politcs. Some kind of voluntary association that has been given municipal authority- town council, volunteer committee, church council, whatever. The woman is a thorough professional- teacher, lawyer, anything where public speaking is common. She's a soccer mom who hangs out with her girlfriends at the gym, jogging club, etc. Her kids play football, her son being defensive tackle or something like it. She homeschools to supplement what they learn at school. Her husband is in public service, real public service- policeman, firefighter, construction. Something physical. He's the strong, silent type who stands in the back of the meeting hall with his little girl sleeping in his arms, a gentle smile on his face as his wife owns the room with fire and passion.

Most importantly, the candidate has to be reluctant, but once persuaded to run absolute hell to manage. Her campaign staff should be in despair all the time, as she rides roughshod over them and ignores how it's always been done. Some of you may notice that my template plays to identity politics; she's a mother, a woman, professional, good looks with a perfect life. Yes, yes I am playing to identity politics. But my point is that her life is a direct result of her political belief. The vast majority of gorgeous, desirable, and challenging American women I know (you know who you are) are products of a fierce desire for personal liberty and the resistance of socialism. It isn't wrong to show the American people the proof that Conservatism works.

I now stand for cross examination. Paramedics are standing by.

Justice Sotomayor gets *&%$^-Slapped, Hilarity Ensues

2009-07-04T12:23:00.003-04:00

So, the SCotUS decided recently that race statistics alone are not good enough to determine the value of a test for hiring practices. To recap what happened: a bunch of firefighters in New Haven, CT, wrote a test to determine whether they should be eligible for promotion. White guys and latinos scored well enough for immediate promotion, whereas not a single black applicant scored any better than a "future promotion" grade. The city, for fear of being sued by blacks, threw out the test results. In a fit of poetic justice, the white and latino applicants sued. Justice Sotomayor, in a cowardly unsigned opinion, declared that the city was justified, as a lack of diversity and the threat of being sued were justification enough to drop the test. In essence, she told the white firefighters that their demographic could be oppressed at will. Naturally, the lads used their constitutional right to appeal to a higher judicially activist body. Their faith in the court system is clearly greater than mine.

Shockingly, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the white and latino firefighters were right. Hundreds of thousands of dollars later, we have legalistic confirmation that affirmative action is code for racism, just with a different victim. Lovely. Naturaly, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a screeching dissent, decrying the precedent being set. After all, without victim identity groups, how will Democrat politics work? However, even that raging loon couldn't defend Justice Sotomayor's unsigned opinion. Ginsburg wrote something about Sotomayor not having the time in such a minor ruling to fully delineate her arguments, but I would say it's a poor workman that lets someone else blame his tools. Regardless, despite a split decision, the Supreme Court was in agreement that Justice Sotomayor's reasoning was either just plain wrong or so poorly articulated as to carry the same weight.

So where do we stand? I really think Ann Coulter says it best; "This suggests that a wise Jewess, due to the richness of her life experiences, might come to a better judgment than a Latina judge would."

Mrrrow!

Musings, with apologies for recent absence

2009-06-27T09:41:00.002-04:00

I'm busy on a very intense course. Not much time or energy left at the end of the day for this.

Recently, a few things have come to my attention. Firstly, the inestimable Monique Stuart points out that even Democrats are uncomfortable with the degree of haste the Obama administration is demanding on legislation. Apparently, the Health care bill is being rushed, with every attempt being made to close down debate. As I am currently reading Liberal Fascism, a disturbing thought comes to mind. The Obama administration seems to be anti-thought. Every effort is being made to stop people from taking the time to consider the repercussions of actions. The health issue needs action- now! The economy needs a bailout- now! Action is being fetishized, which is a classic symptom of overly aggressive personality cults. Furthermore, the MSM's focus on President Obama's supposed paragon of virility status is eerily reminiscent of the treatment Mussolini received in his day (for all his flaws, Mussolini was no genocidal racist, and he was popular with the ladies). The other disturbing element of this whole theatre is the intimidation of the average voter with doomsday scenarios. For a party that accuses the Republicans of banking on the politics of fear, the Democrats seem spend a lot of time darkly implying an "or else..." Both of these tactics serve to eliminate any reasonable period of deliberation. At this point, neither the House nor the Senate are really doing their jobs. Big Surprise.

The other issue I want to address is a little closer to home. The current leadership race for Ontario's Progressive Conservatives (hate the name, incidentally) is an excellent microcosm for the state of the conservative movement in the Western world. One candidate, Randy Hillier, is massively popular with the grassroots and the blogging community. He has the Ezra Levant seal of approval, because his central plank is the elimination of Ontario's Human Rights Commission. No negotiation, no attempt at reform, no half-measures. Smaller government, and a crisp smack to the gob of overreaching bureaucrats. However, the chattering classes don't like him because they fear he isn't "electable" due to his lack of polish and his unwillingness to compromise. Event the National Post chose to endorse a more moderate candidate for fear of repeating the John Tory Religious Schools incident. Therein lies the problem; conservatives are afraid. Even though we know full well that the cries of agony and laments of victimhood are patently false, we still fear being labelled as mean by liberals.

$&*@ That! Since when did electability rest on anything other than strength of policy and character? Conservatives have the Sisyphean task of repairing damage and then moving forward, every single election. Stop crying about it, and do it. People like David Frum make me crazy. Conservatism doesn't win by being less conservative to get more votes. Compromises should leave both sides bloody and exhausted. Every time a conservative makes a compromise with a liberal that doesn't leave the liberal wailing to the nearest NGO about the heartlessness of conservatism, it is a failure. John McCain was supposed to be a brilliant compromise candidate. A moderate Republican, a "maverick" who could get along with Democrats. The Dems laughed all the way to the White House. Our side picked a grumpy 72 year old because he could play nice with others. Their side picked a charismatic candidate who hangs out with unrepentant terrorists, race baits his own family, and thrives on Chicago style politics. The Republicans brought tea and crumpets to a tank battle.

Liberals do everything they can to circumscribe direct conflict, because they know they don't have the guts. They try to take your guns, because guns symbolize standing up for yourself and that takes guts. They try to take your free speech, because telling the truth means telling others that some ideas are objectively better than others and that takes guts. They try to eliminate debate in Congress, because debate means withstanding scrutiny and defending your ideals and that takes guts.

Stop playing Calvinball. Harden the &%$! up, and get the job done. Voters will respect you if you put your convictions on display. Have the courage to resist the infantilization of politics. If you don't, liberals will keep winning.

Take Time Today to Remember, and Draw Strength from the Courage of the Past

2009-06-06T09:57:00.003-04:00

They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them.

June 6th, 1944. Approximately 130,000 Canadian soldiers of 3rd Canadian Infantry Division and 2nd Armoured Brigade land at Juno Beach. Catching the German Army completely by surprise with the scale of the landing, Canadian troops rapidly silence shore defences and push inland. By the end of the day, 574 Canadians lay dead, with 340 wounded. Compared to the other Allied Forces, casualties were light. The Canadians would pay dearly the next day, impossibly holding their lines against a massive counter-attack. For that day, however, a stunning victory had been won.

As an interesting aside, almost all footage of D-Day landings are of Juno Beach.

Why I Hate New Brunswick, part 3 of Infinity

2009-06-06T09:28:00.003-04:00

I hate New Brunswick.

What has set me off this time? Further proof that this province embodies all that is wrong with contemporary Canadian society, of course. I went out last night with a good friend, and while we were engaged in our usual scandalous follies, we encountered something shocking. The attractive young woman working the door at the club had a Military History degree, but had never read Clausewitz.

You read that correctly. She had never read excerpts from Vom Krieg. She didn't even know why she should have. Oh, she read Jomini all right, but no Clausewitz. For those of you who aren't into the whole military theory thing, Jomini was a contemporary of Napoleon who wrote a manual essentially stating that war could be won using the strict application of principles and battlefield geometry. Clausewitz was his polar opposite, claiming that war had no set rules, and that victory was the result of a commander influencing his enemy through manoeuvre on both the moral (mental) and physical planes. Jominian thought is responsible for the bloody mess that was World War I. Studying Clausewitz is what allowed the German army to make fullest use of the tank and blitzkrieg (neither of which they invented). At this point, the only impact Jomini still has on military thought is that NATO armies have general principles of war, but they are so broad and encompassing that there is nothing mathematical or precise about them.

So why does a young woman with a BA in Military History not knowing this upset me so much? Because it tells you how modern universities, at least civilian ones, work. This young woman wasn't taught how to think; she was taught what to think. Her professor didn't even discuss the possibility that there was an opposing view. There was no open marketplace of ideas, there was only what the prof allowed the students to see. This prof, to steal an allegory from Plato, deliberately shackled students in the cave and told them the shadows on the wall were the extent of reality.

I took courses at two different military academies. At no point was I ever limited in this way. At any point in my studies, when there were two opposing views I was forced to examine both and then make up my own mind. My english courses were taught by feminists. I had history courses from both Dr. Sean Malloney (sorry if I spelled that wrong, sir) and Dr. Jane Errington. Look them up- you can't get much more variety than that. My politics courses? I got them from Dr. Alan Whitehorn (probably the only Leftist I truly respect) and Dr. Joel Sokolsky. When I went south of the border for a semester, I took courses from US Army officers who had participated in the Iraq war, and then received courses on Arab and Jihadi political thought from Dr. Assaf Moghadam, himself an Iraqi. At every turn, I was encouraged to seek out opposing views to the popular mode of thought. I got psychology courses that warned of groupthink, and every time I wrote an essay, I was subjected to ruthless academic standards. I can proudly say that when I agree with the government position, it's because I understand it and its justification, not because they paid for my education.

Is it any wonder university students voted so overwhelmingly for Obama? I'm willing to bet that if a Military History student was shielded from the most influential Western military thinker of all time, economics students are being shielded from evidence that government intervention is bad. Politics students are being shielded from analysis of Democratic Party tendencies. Law students are probably being shielded from the Constitution, though thanks to Justice Antonin Scalia that's probably an uphill battle.

Universities are becoming echo-chambers. No wonder an undergrad degree is losing its value.

In other news, I'm on Monique Stuart's Blogroll! Awesome! Go check her out, she's very intellectually stimulating, and unabashed smokers are worthy of respect.

This Week in Abject Cowardice

2009-06-04T17:49:00.004-04:00

You heard it here first. A Canadian, one of many living under the thumb of the ultimate nanny-state, thinks the current batch of Republican senators are coward. You heard me right.

Senators, you are cowards. Your fear sickens me. Your weakness disgusts me. Step aside, you have failed.

Why such hatred? Because they aren't going to fight the Sotomayor nomination. That's right. The woman who discriminated against Connecticut firefighters because while they were talented, a bunch of ethnic minorities weren't, so the test was unfair. Oh. Well then. My mistake. I suppose army and police courses had better stop running Close Quarters Battle testing, because the vast majority of people who join SWAT teams and the Infantry are white men. The Royal Canadian Armour Corps (unofficial motto- Speed and Violence) had better start recruiting from women's studies programs, because there just aren't enough female officers. Also, any judge who doesn't have a "diverse" enough life story had better stop issuing rulings. Especially if he is a white man.

How far has their intellectual integrity fallen? If this were Roman times, and the Republican senators real Senators, then the outer Legion pickets would be dead, the watchtowers burnings, the walls breached, and the Prime Century would be rallied around the standard, shields locked and grimly waiting for death. The centurions would furiously be trying to rally the men, and the damned aristocrats standing in the square would be bickering over how flowery the language of surrender is to be.

The Democrats are just as bent on plunder as the Visigoths. A peacetime President is nationalizing banks and industry! Meanwhile, men who are supposed to represent the wisest of their party complain that Nero's fiddle is out of tune. I know I'm mixing my historical metaphors, but I am furious! This is what we can expect? Timidity, and paper tiger speeches?

Yes. Because the Republican National Senate Committee is terrified of losing the latino vote. After all, latinos are so ignorant they'll support anyone who appoints people with spanish names to high office, right? It's the soft bigotry of low expectations at work. Here's a thought. Why don't we try to win people over with dedication to policy? Reduce government. Stimulate the economy through the proven methods of lower taxes and more individual freedom. Start calling a spade a spade, rather than a human operated digging apparatus.

Triumphant Return, Courtesy of Grave Concerns

2009-05-30T11:17:00.002-04:00

I apologize for my absence. I have recently started a new course at work, and last week I was working from 5 AM to 9PM, leaving me with little or no energy to devote to political commentary. That, and I was a bit out of the loop. Feel free to give me specific political issues of concern from the last week if you think they deserve my attention.

My focus this week is the President's nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the SCOTUS. This, as I warned all of my left-leaning friends during the election, is the inevitable result of playing identity politics. As has been stated in pretty much every newspaper of note (with varying degrees of admiration by the usual rags), Sotomayor makes her decisions through the lens of her own personal experiences as an immigrant. To this, I can only respond that I am thankful that she is only on the 2nd Circuit. She has actually explicitly stated that she thinks a Hispanic woman is better suited to being a judge than a white man, simply by virtue of her perspective. As RS McCain says, Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?! The last time I checked, there was the delightful little concept of "impartiality" to protect. Are we to be held hostage now by sympathies to identity groups?

Ironically, no. If you pay close attention, you'll notice that Democrats play a particularly vile brand of identity politics. They will absorb a group into their "big tent", though I'd use the term collective, and then should this group not adhere exactly to the greater plan they will be ignored. Take for instance the black community in California; they voted overwhelmingly in favour of President Obama. However, the vast majority of the President's economic policies will have no demonstrable impact on black poverty. In fact, one could argue that his economic policies will hurt black families because the areas he is targeting with "stimulus" are predominantly the reserve of bleeding heart upper middle class white people. I fail to see how protecting the snail darter is rewarding the black community. Furthermore, gays voted overwhelmingly Democrat as well, and yet they are getting no help on the marriage issue. As HillBuzz has pointed out, it's an issue of language rather than rights. However, a continued battle on gay marriage is of interest to the Democratic party, and so gays will continue to vote for them and get nothing in exchange.

President Obama is the apotheosis of this ruthless and unethical way. He used a groundswell of feeling by identity groups like blacks and disenfranchised youth to gain power, but he's not accepting any kind of reciprocal responsibility. He promised them Hope and Change. He'll bring them death, and they will love him for it.

Rule 5 Sunday! Part 2, The Democratic Process

2009-05-24T13:06:00.004-04:00

Hungover today. Busy all week. Not much energy for this kind of thing. I'm hoping to do some catching up next week, what with the Democratic Party in Congress trying to pass communism through environmentalism. Keep on track with Monique Stuart and RS McCain on the unusual happenings.

This week, I thought I'd open Rule 5 to the floor. Post links in the comments section, and throughout the rest of the day I'll update the main body with the images. Have fun!

UPDATE

What the hell. I love Alizée.It isn't every day you see a Corsican hottie.

Rule 5 Sunday!

2009-05-17T10:01:00.006-04:00

The title has nothing to do with the content of the post. Go to The Other McCain to get the meaning. Also, just to keep my brother happy, this post is totally free of Ann Coulter references.

Today I'm going to muse on the political culture of my current city, and why it is moronic. Here in Fredericton, a riding that historically has gone blue (that means the same thing as going red for my American readers), I am surrounded by people who have no idea how politics actually works. It's amazing what 8 years of voting liberal can do to the cultural psyche.

First of all, people seem to assume that President GW Bush was the worst president in history. They can cite no evidence, they can offer no sane argumentation. When questioned, they look at you as if you claimed the sky is neon yellow. Forget the fact that previous Presidents have committed perjury and probably felonies (President Clinton), completely fumbled Mideast policy and allowed Americans to be held hostage for over a year (President Carter), bungled the PR campaign on what was militarily the cleanest jungle war ever (President Johnson). I could go on, but I think you get my point. Make no mistake, I do not credit President Bush with being in the top 5, but you have to give the man a reasonable analysis. He dealt admirably with the greatest attack on US soil since Pearl Harbour. He concluded a successful ground campaign in a country that had repelled all previous attempts at doing so (seriously, even the Brits never had garrisons in every Afghan province). He removed on of the most intractable and wily dictators around from power, and he managed to hold his ground against two innovative insurgent campaigns at the same time, while simultaneously preventing a follow-up attack on the US. Allow me to be completely clear: Al Qaeda had plans and attempted to execute several attacks on the US post 9/11. That's how terrorist campaigns work. You open with a bang to get people's attention, and then you bleed their will to fight by demonstrating that you can hit them anywhere you want. That hasn't happened, so if you want to blame President Bush for Iraq, you had best be willing to give him credit for the lack of further attacks on US soil. Or you are a hypocrite.

Which brings me to my next point. Hypocrisy is rampant in this part of the country. It really irritates me, especially as a libertarian. People in this city just love to tell me how the Canadian military should be deployed to Darfur, but that the current Afghan mission is a war for oil. They love to tell me that the government should intervene and force Evangelicals to be nicer to gays, but that their "right" to smoke weed shouldn't be infringed. Well? Which is it? Do you want an interventionist nanny-state that regulates everything right down to how you feel about the asshole next door who plays country music at 4 AM? Or do you want the government to treat you like an individual citizen and stakeholder, with the rights and responsibilities that entails?

Nevermind, you're probably too baked to understand half of those words. Go back to parroting Jon Stewart and thinking you're brilliant.

And now for something completely different! Rule 5 WOOO! (Click for full size, I'm still learning how this stuff works)

War is Peace, and we Have Always been at War With Eastasia

2009-05-14T14:39:00.004-04:00

A quick aside for those of you who think I actually MEAN "East Asia". It's a truncated quotation from 1984. "Eastasia" is one of the 3 megalithic political blocs.

Go read Five Feet of Fury. Right now. I mean it, do not come back until you have checked that link. Scroll down until you can read "Today's Hate Crime".

I cannot even begin to describe the degree to which I am incensed. According to Canada's draconian counter-protest legislation, if you wish to stage a demonstration against another demonstration, you must allow yourself to be segregated into a tiny box and surrounded by police. This is not to protect you, it is to protect the larger protest from you. I have seen this lunacy before. During the latest round of Pro-Gaza, Pro-HAMAS protests, pro-Israel protesters were often dispersed by police for "disturbing the peace". Apparently, waving HAMAS flags and chanting "death to [insert group here, including Jewish children]" is just fine though. Now we see it again.

Only this time, it could be much worse. Canadian hate-crime legislation under the Criminal Code is already pretty damn sweeping. Luckily for these protesters, it really only kicks in once it has been proven that you committed a crime. It's a way of ratcheting up your sentence because you were thinking naughty thoughts. Some Mens are more Rea than others. However, if the Toronto Police have launched a hate crimes investigation, regardless of outcome, we can be sure of two things. 1: Canadian politicians, local and federal, are afraid of losing Tamil votes and so are already in appeasement mode. 2: Barbara Hall, of the Dreaded Ontario Human Rights Commission, is going to start talking again. I think we can all agree that a woman so pretentious that she believes she is better qualified than a judge to determine whether or not a woman wearing a veil while testifying violates a defendent's rights to face his accuser shouldn't really be given a microphone. I can tell you right now, she will recommend that the Tamil protesters lodge a complaint to the HRC, at which point these poor counter-protesters will be persecuted at her whim.

And for what? Stating something that was confirmed in an Act of Freakin' Parliament! "Protect Canada, Fight the Tamil Tigers". The Canadian Government has a stated position of forceful opposition to and non-negotiation with terrorist groups. The Tamil Tigers are a terrorist group. Therefore the Canadian Government will forcefully oppose and refuse to negotiate with the Tamil Tigers. Simple syllogism, right? I guess not.

Sometimes I just Can't Help Myself. I have to Smack Morons

2009-05-13T14:58:00.002-04:00

Alright, alright, I know I'm risking the wrath of my brother here, but I must comment once again, in a roundabout way, on Ann Coulter. I promise not to gush. Well, not excessively anyway.

The latest "it-girl" on the blogosphere (and now I go to wash with fire after using that phrase) is Meghan McCain, the daughter John wishes he never had. Seriously, this girl is frighteningly stupid. Now, I know that a lot of American conservatives are pointing out that John McCain finished badly at the Academy. Frankly, that doesn't have much to do with anything. John McCain was too busy dating strippers and Jumping the Wall to care about his ranking. Having experienced a US service academy, I can't say I blame him. Still, there is no excuse for the idiocy that is his daughter.

Take a gander at her blog. It is beyond comical that she gets tagged as having expertese in anything, let alone politics. Media? Well, maybe. Being addicted to publicity might qualify. I mean, like, really? She's upset that Arlen Specter left the party? All snarkiness aside, she really is a travesty being forced into the public sphere. You would think the daughter of two prominent public figures would be able to speak without sounding like a socialite from southern California.

Don't even get me started on her desire to morph the Republican Party into the Other Democratic Party. Oops, too late. Every one of her "arguments", assuming she bothers to make a point, is substantiated only by personal conjecture. Her assertions don't meet any aspect of the standard Parliamentary Debating test for veracity. None of her assertions are "commonly recognized fact". None of them are "easily demonstrable by basic research". They certainly aren't "conclusions based on rational premise". You can tell she hasn't a leg to stand on because she hasn't, that I am aware of, ever used the phrase "I think". It's always "I feel". Congratulations, you would be executed in the world of Equilibrium.

Apparently, this little tart had two tickets to the White House Correspondents' Dinner, and tried to get an extra guest in Paris Hilton Style. Also, for greater amusement value, she apparently thinks that she can oust Ann Coulter as the resident Republican Hottie.

That paragraph break was to give me time to recover from a near-terminal fit of laughter. Ann Coulter's physical appearance is convenient, but not necessary to her popularity. People don't flock to Rush Limbaugh for his looks; they do it because he is provocative and entertaining. Ann Coulter is popular because people agree with her. She's popular because she knows how to start a fight, and how to end it. She's popular because she writes with wit, humour, and a shocking degree of substantive evidence.

Humourously enough, Ann Coulter describes in excruciating detail how people like Meghan McCain become popular. The MSM just loves someone who claims to be Republican but has no idea what it actually means. Christopher Buckley's political views were of no interest until he endorsed President Obama. Now that he regrets his decision, he has receded into political obscurity. One can only hope the same will happen to Ms. McCain.

The Coming Disaster

2009-05-13T13:59:00.002-04:00

This week in both the National Post and the Globe and Mail, allusions were made to the possibility that economic recovery has already begun, or will begin shortly. Naturally, the current batch of politicians are already burnishing their economic credentials, preparing to take credit for the "miraculous recovery".

Frankly, this is horseshit.

First of all, there is no possible way that the "stimulus" packages could be credited with a potential recovery. Why? Because the vast majority of that money hasn't been spent yet. Essentially, the governments of the West are expecting us to believe that merely the ephemeral promise of governmental largesse has produced a counter-cyclical effect! Consumer confidence restored, the great toxic assets purified by the Name of Mighty Keynes. Right, and if that's true then swine flu is really avian flu because the pigs are darkening the skies over a newly risen Atlantis.

Part of a particular process taught to all military officers involves asking yourself, repeatedly, "Has the situation changed? If so, how does this affect me?" Well, the situation hasn't changed. Americans and Canadians, and probably everyone else, are losing their jobs at a steady rate. Toxic assets are still toxic, and people are still defaulting on mortgages. Banks are still skittish about lending to each other, as no one's asset sheets are believable. Worst of all, the government is refusing to allow banks to pay back the TARP funds so as to be free of congressional interference. Oh, and GM and Chrysler still have moronic business practices.

Economists are predicting minor growth, and soon. Bully for them. I consider this to be the eye of the storm, because as RS McCain states "The Fundamentals Still Suck". Not to mention the government is aggravating the situation with needless interference and an increase in taxes for, well, just about all Americans. Mark Steyn is looking more and more prescient in his warnings that the dreaded Rich in America might soon include more people than expected.

So what do we have now? Perhaps, and I consider this very likely, we will have a happily ignorant plebeian class more than ready to return to somnambulism, encouraged by a class of elites with no understanding of economics but a burning desire to rearrange the world into some Utopian order. My brother, a legal alien in Oklahoma City, commented that the latest rash of get rich quick ads go something like "Big Business is getting bailout money! Now it's your turn!"

The American Dream is slowly being eroded by an addiction to government largesse. The only Justice that comes from Socialism is that people dumb enough to buy into it will get exactly what they deserve. Unfortunately, the rest of us will be collateral damage.

Why "Diversity" is simply another name for Appeasement

2009-05-12T16:44:00.003-04:00

Hat tip to Kathy Shaidle over at Five Feet of Fury on reminding me of my favourite ex-Muslim.
(Some related reading, not directly about today's post)

If you were not aware, on Mother's Day, the Tamil minority in Toronto demanded attention by blockading the Gardiner's Expressway (a major artery) en masse. To visibly demonstrate the justice of their cause, they used women and children as blockades to prevent the police from forcibly removing them. Well, at least they didn't use the standard Tiger tactic and strap bombs to them.

That's right. I am making an unequivocal statement on the nature of the protest. Every person in that crowd should have been forcibly dispersed for openly agitating on behalf of a known terrorist group. It's in the Globe and Mail. It's in the National Post. It's on every blog that concerns itself with Canadian affairs. These "peaceful protesters" wave Tiger flags and literally chant "Tamil Tigers! Freedom Fighters!"

Funny how HRCs will persecute an Alberta pastor for vehemently preaching one of the tenets of his faith, and yet don't do a damn thing when an entire mob is shouting its support for an organization that Parliament has labelled terrorist. Let's be clear on this. I don't care about Sri Lanka. I don't care that Tamils are being oppressed, I don't care that Tamils are doing atrocious things to Sinhalese Sri Lankans. It isn't my country, and I have no stake in this. I do care if our democratically elected government has declared it illegal to materially support a specific group with international ties, and a select group of citizens deliberately and noisily chooses to ignore that.

I will give Tamil-Canadians two pieces of advice. Firstly, choose a nationality. For the sake of political behaviour, you are either Tamil or you are Canadian. I have family in Italy, but I have no intention of harassing the Canadian government regarding Berlusconi's policy. Secondly, I will give you the same advice I give to girls lamenting that life is unfair:

You are not a beautiful snowflake, unique in all the world.
You are a cog in a great and wondrous machine.
Cogs that begin to grind, or slip, or otherwise fail get replaced.
The world keeps turning.

The Depths to Which We Have Sunk

2009-05-11T12:15:00.003-04:00

And Lo, President Obama was elected, expiating American original sin and heralding a dawn of Hope and Change.

Well, we got change alright. Hat tip to RS McCain (the other McCain to whom I link) for pointing out that since his election, the media has tied absolutely everything to President Obama. People losing jobs? Oh No! How will this affect the President's polling data? New Star Trek movie! Great, Sci-Fi voters will compare Obama to Spock (patently ludicrous). The President chose Dijon mustard for his photo-op burger? DEAR GOD! EDIT IT OUT! FASTER, BEFORE THEY CALL HIM FRENCH! Meanwhile, in Texas, millions of Americans who voted against Obama enjoy mustard on a burger and the world continues to turn.

Seriously folks, the love affair the US media has with Obama is starting to actually nauseate me. He is not the first charismatic president. Reagan's speeches still resonate, and I haven't seen any footage of TV interviewers (even amateurs like Chris Matthews) gushing like schoolgirls. He speaks reasonably well (and I'm being generous, see previous posts). Get over it.

Secondly, if Democrats are so terrified that their urbane and cultured president could alienate voters based on which condiment he uses on a freakin' burger then perhaps it is time that they concede he is in fact a stuffed shirt, and since mustard is so devilishly hard to get out of cotton they just can't have it anywhere near him. At some point, Democrats are going to have to wake up and realize that in the next election, they are going to have to campaign on what the President actually accomplished, rather than the sparkle and dazzle campaign to which we were subjected last time. Unfortunately for them, President Obama has already demonstrated that he is to the left of the vast majority of American voters, and he is haemorraging independents faster than Christopher Buckley can remove "Obamacon" from his Facebook profile.

Quick, someone edit out a live report of the President saying he doesn't like Mexican food! That ought to save us from genuine scrutiny for at least 3 news cycles!

Because not Everything Can Be About Politics

2009-05-10T20:56:00.003-04:00

So, I must give in to my nerditude, although it is tangentially related to my hatred of our current generation.

I went and saw the new Star Trek today, and it was brilliant. As was my wont, I watched a few reviews to make sure I wouldn't be caught with my pants down regarding idiotic plot twists. Instead, I was caught with my pants down regarding idiot reviewers. There are no major spoilers here, so feel free to read on.

In the opening sequence, time traveling baddies are revealed. This of course presents the old logical conundrum that altering the past of a necessity alters the future. This is where the movie gets brilliant. Read this next line carefully.

No effort is made to refute the fact that interference from the future dramatically alters the course of history.

That's right folks. This movie, rather ambitiously, has thrown out the canon. Everything that happened in Star Trek TV shows and movies (other than Enterprise, though accept it as canon at your own risk) has not happened and most likely will not happen. The entire Star Trek universe is being reinvented, just as James Bond was reinvented in Casino Royale. Characters have the same names, the theme is the same, but the setting has been fundamentally altered (I won't spoil the movie as to how, but it's pretty freaking cataclysmic).

The movie was witty and very well executed, with clever nods at each iteration of Star Trek. I particularly enjoyed Kirk's womanizing (Yes there is in fact a Green Alien Woman, he does make out with her, and she is Gloriously Hot) and the fact that the infamous Cheating on the Final Test incident gets dramatized. Bones is suitably cranky, Scotty is very scottish and hilarious in his own right, and Uhura remains the token hot chick on the bridge. Life is good. Spock is a much more central character than you'd expect, and frequently steals the scene.

So why do I hate the whining nerds? Because they are symptomatic of a society totally bent on instant gratification. Those who bitch and moan that it "doesn't feel like Star Trek" are missing the point. You don't bitch about Shakespeare because it doesn't feel like Virgil. The intent of this movie was to take a successful setting, the future, and reinvigorate it for the new generation. I'm sure people bitched that Patrick Stewart was no Shatner, and that simply proves the cyclic nature of idiocy. The directors of this film have taken the franchise in a new direction. Pull yourself out of the primordial goo that is obsessive fandom and actually analyse the movie. Coherent plot? Check (baddie out for revenge). Sympathetic and interesting characters? Check. Gunplay, fast cars/ships, and attractive women/men? Check, Check, and oh dear god more of the Green Hottie next time Check.

It was fantastic. Stop whining, and enjoy the latest iteration of the series. After all, as the movie itself states, it's an alternate Star Trek timeline. If you really miss Shatner's Kirk so badly, buy the damn DVDs.

The Virtue of Pursuing National Self Interest

2009-05-06T17:27:00.002-04:00

I am constantly frustrated by bleeding hearts who insist that this or that cause must be pursued, as it is just and good. These folk often complain bitterly when the military is engaged in a cause that doesn't exactly mesh with the current cause célebre. The most recent example is obvious; twenty years ago the plight of women in Afghanistan was constantly decried. Now? Well, unfortunately for the women of Afghanistan, their interests happen to align with those of the US Government. Oops. Bad call on your part, Afghan women. Now those same hippies who were screaming Something Must Be Done are wailing about yet another War For Oil.

It's as if there is some unwritten rule that reads That which is good for the goose and also good for the US Government causes hysteria and incoherence in the gander.

How many years did we listen to people wail about starving Iraqi children under the failed Oil for Food program? Removing the primary cause of this travesty, namely the dictator who refused to abide by the simplest regulation, is now casually referred to as the greatest war crime of the decade. After all, Bush Lied, right? Well, sort of. You see, precursor chemicals for WMDs don't come in barrels labeled "Precursor Chemical!" Furthermore, Iraq has a lot of open desert where such barrels could be dumped. But again we are spiralling into irrelevance. Is it not enough that we got rid of a very bad man who was starving children? Apparently not. Under our current system, Revolutionary Americans would have had to suffer 20 years of newspaper headlines something like "Washington Violates Internation Law by Crossing Delaware" or "Yorktown Tragedy leaves 3 civilians Murdered".

No one cares about Darfur. Why? Because there is no imminent threat from Darfur. Even the jihadis are too busy killing "inferior" races to bother with the Great Satan. Limited resources imply some kind of rationality in how they are employed, and the only fair way to judge who gets rescued and who doesn't is by asking "What do I get?"

Sure, Being Frighteningly Narcissistic is Change...

2009-05-05T19:32:00.005-04:00

I've had enough of the revoltingly torrid love affair the Mainstream Media (MSM) has with the current US President. Seriously, from the infamous Chris Matthews Tingle to the Colbert Speech Comparison Computer, this President is being celebrated for being inept, rude, and just plain embarrassing.

Before I get to the most offensive episode of his Hundred Days, I will give a brief and unattributed overview of the things that irritate me about the ceaseless gushing over President Obama. Firstly: he is not a magnificent orator. He has presentational skill, of a sort, but regardless of what material he is addressing it is the same solemn and yet energetic tone. Every statement he makes is declamatory, as if his mode of speech was permanently locked on "Gravitas". This is not the mark of a great orator. This is the mark of a great presenter, and this leads me to my second proof of his oratorical inadequacy: the teleprompter. Has anyone else noticed that in the absence of a teleprompter to read, or an opportunity to plagiarize great lines (yeah, Audacity of Hope isn't original...at least he left out the God Damn America part) The Great Orator tends to floss with his shoelaces. Bitterly clinging to God and guns? Bowling like the Special Olympics? Quick, stop the presses! Cicero is reborn! I'm sure I'm not the first commenter (See Steyn, Coulter, et al) to have noticed that the current President sounds more than a little like the Hallmark Special Memories line of greeting cards. Real orators are ALWAYS on. A real orator can walk into a room with a cue card bearing only a single word, and speak for an hour. A real orator can scribble his thoughts on a page while traveling to the site of a speech, and leave us in awe for decades. This President's inaugural was a historic moment, and the address didn't even come close to meeting the occasion.

Secondly, his inexperience and frankly boorish behaviour is not excusable as "a new way of doing things". Prime Minister Brown gave President Obama a penholder carved from wood taken from the sister ship to the Resolute (of Presidential Desk fame). Two anti-slaving ships, reunited as necessary implements of policy-making for America's first Black President. Brilliant, touching, totally appropriate. A 25 DVD set, given to a man blind in one eye, in the wrong format for UK DVD players? Well played. Don't forget the official White House plastic pen. Giving the Queen of England an iPod full of hip hop and your own speeches is not a cool new way of doing politics, it's a new kid trying to show off. Also? YOU DO NOT TOUCH THE QUEEN WITHOUT PERMISSION! This isn't some quaint custom, it is law! The Queen is the head of state for more than one country, and is also the Head of a major Christian Sect. Your wife, similar to Jackie O as the press might label her, is not permitted to casually wrap her arm around the Queen.

My point is this: President GW Bush was given flak at every possible opportunity for the smallest nuance of his behaviour. Sometimes he even deserved it. Why isn't the same standard being held to this President? It's like we're reliving the Clinton days! Some things are just not okay regardless of how cool and popular the MSM tells us you are. Being stylish and relatively young and potentially handsome is all well and good, but these things do not a leader make. Get a grip, Mr. President. You aren't organizing a community anymore. In this game, unrepentant terrorists actually kill people, rather than just bore college students to death.

Surrendering, and Calling it Victory

2009-05-04T20:26:00.003-04:00

One of the most irritating habits of the Right Wing in politics is to abjectly surrender, and then call it victory. Ann Coulter (yes, she is probably my favourite) comments extensively on the habit of those who believe in God, guns, and a literal interpretation of the US Constitution to apologize shamefacedly as a preface to their arguments. Furthermore, Conservatives often call it a day and job well done when some commentator briefly accepts that both conservatives and liberals have committed some fault. Well! In that case, we had all just better pack it up in any conflict. After all, both sides have lost people. Mission accomplished!

A couple of issues have brought this irritating tendency of Western conservatives to mind. Firstly, Kathy Shaidle's latest article on the double standard enjoyed by Muslims has me in an atheist fury. My position is simple. If you choose to worship some sky-god, earth mother, or tree spirit, DO NOT EXPECT PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT OVER OTHER WORSHIPERS. I consider most organized religions amusingly ludicrous in their obsessive narcissism (why would the creator of the universe care if one human eats pork?). However, of late, Muslims seem to unabashedly demand preferential treatment. Worse still, they claim the status of victimhood if we hold them to the same status as say, Hindus. "But our god is the true god!" Not to me buddy. And frankly, if your proof that your religion is peaceful includes burning embassies over the publication of cartoons then my proof of tolerance includes a Marine Expeditionary Force all up in yo' grill.

The second issue that brought this to mind was a rather eloquent and long post by RS McCain on his blog. He was responding to allegations by fellow bloggers that his tone is inappropriate while dealing with the subject of feminine beauty (I agree with McCain; fake breasts lack a certain panache). During his posting, he pointed out that conservatives often accept as "Reaganesque" anything that simply appears Reaganesque. Put on a monochrome two-button, call yourself conservative, and the GOP will literally bury you in cash. This is of course patently ludicrous. You could cover yourself in tattoos and piercings, and as long as you maintained a dedication to the capitalist system, a total devotion to personal responsibility, and an agressive foreign policy viewpoint, you would be more Reaganesque than at least five Republican senators I can think of. Just because Ronald Reagan was a handsome Irishman in a suit does not mean that anyone attempting to be handsome in a suit is conservative.

Frankly, I'm quite tired of the abject terror struck into the hearts of public conservatives every time they get cornered by a reporter. It's complete garbage that a man is not allowed to have a position on abortion. The First Amendment is not the Anti-Criticism Amendment. Logical analysis of Presidential behaviour (more on this in a future post) should not be suspended because he is the first Black President.

Living in today's society is like playing a giant game of Calvinball. When your opponent is willing to say anything, and contradict himself on an almost daily basis so as to try to shut you up, your only defence is to firmly, and repetitively, reassert the facts.

I must not Fear - Criticizing President Obama is not racism
Fear is the Mind-Killer - All cultures are not of equal value
Fear is the Little Death that brings total obliteration - Religion is not a valid excuse for violence
I will face my Fear - Being conservative does not make you a bigot or a moron
I will permit it to pass over and through me - A loud liberal is still wrong
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path
A liberal's outrage is inversely proportional to the veracity of the evidence supporting him
When the Fear has gone there will be nothing - Being right is more important than courtesy
Only I will remain.

Thoughts on Ann Coulter's "Guilty"

2009-05-03T17:00:00.002-04:00

I consider Ann Coulter to be a guilty pleasure. Like admitting that you listen to Rush Limbaugh, reading Ms. Coulter is viewed as a potentially communicable disease in certain circles. After all, she's a Right-Wing-Jesus-Freak-Lunatic, right? Well, sort of. As a libertarian and an atheist, I find her constant references to God (yes, she differentiates between God and god) occasionally and by turns amusing and grating. Her obvious disdain for her own gender is an issue of much confusion for me (she has on occassion been quoted as wishing women couldn't vote), and her attribution of feminine traits to male politicians is humourous only in a throwaway line kind of way. She isn't shy about accusing people of Godlessness, and considers (with a surprising amount of statistical support) single motherhood the greatest societal scourge since Communism. Her fixation on President Obama's middle name (she refers to him as B. Hussein Obama) wears somewhat thin after a while.

All that being said, I can unabashedly call myself a Coulter fan. She is a polemicist; a term modern society doesn't seem to understand. She is deliberately mean, as that is what polemicists do. She is a Republican who refuses to follow the standard procedure of apologizing for her views in advance. She is undeniably witty, and I find myself frequently laughing out loud at some turn of phrase.

"Guilty" is truly a pleasure to read. With just enough humour to prevent the righteous indignation from becoming crushing, she points out in great detail the hypocrisy of the American left. She makes no effort to be balanced; like Thatcher, she is convinced that the facts of life are conservative. As a thought exercise, I deliberately fact-checked every assertion she made that I instinctively agreed to, beginning with her own endnotes. I stopped trying to find inconsistencies after the first forty minutes. I suspect that her iron-clad arguments are a result of her past as a lawyer. Her ruthless exploitation of LexisNexis can be compared to the Canadian Army's ruthless exploitation of artillery in World War I: it is an awesome thing to behold. I'm glad she doesn't know me personally, as my atheism would probably earn me at least five minutes of "fire for effect".

As for her content, Ms. Coulter aims for the controversial. She deliberately chooses issues that cause Canadians to squirm uncomfortably. Abortion, single motherhood, homosexuality, affirmative action, adultery and premarital sex all feature prominently in "Guilty". It's salacious enough, in an Old Testament kind of way. Ms. Coulter goes for the jugular and the junk simultaneously, and she claims the moral high ground through gutter-fighting. It's wildly entertaining. One of her key assertions is that when a Republican quotes or cites the facts in a political dispute, the Democrats claim it is typical Karl Rove style Attack Machine behaviour. In a stunningly logical move, Coulter decides that if she is going to be convicted of being part of an attack machine, she might as well act like it. On almost every page is a reference to Senatory Ted Kennedy and his love for liquor, and driving women off of bridges (her style is contagious).

Read it. It's good stuff. It's brazen, unapologetically partisan, and surprisingly academically rigourous. I suppose it only makes sense; she'd get her leather dress sued off if she didn't get it exactly right.

Living in the Shadow of Government Interventionism

2009-05-03T16:32:00.002-04:00

We are living in curious times. Headlines across the globe are assuming the end of capitalism is come, and we are on the verge of some glorious revolution in human affairs. I am deeply sceptical, as anytime someone predicts a "glorious revolution", we get "the Great Leap Forward". I will be the first to admit that my economic credentials are far from impeccable, but what I do lay claim to is a deep understanding of logical causality and a love for truth. Let us examine our current financial crisis.

The Prime Mover in this case appears to be the collapse of the housing market, brought on by toxic mortgages. Without getting too mired in detail, it is an incontrovertible fact that mortgage corporations were lending money to people who couldn't possibly pay their debts, or at least debts of that magnitude. How is this capitalism? Capitalism is many things, which socialists frequently decry, but it isn't illogical. Money is lent with the expectation that profit will be made. You don't "lend" five dollars to a panhandler; you "give" it to him. Mortgage corporations are not registered charities, so how did these people get loans? President Jimmy Carter's Community Reinvestment Act, that's how. Before anyone accuses me of oversimplifying, I am in fact aware that the crisis is more complex than that. Follow my logical train all the way to the station if you can before judging.

Capitalism is frequently accused of being too hard on "the poor". Poor people cannot afford mortgages on homes, and the middle class can only afford modest domiciles. Capitalism is often seen as discriminatory in the USA, because large numbers of visible minorities are poor. This is false causality. Minority groups are not poor in the USA because capitalism breeds discrimination. Discrimination is anti-capitalist: the skin colour of a job applicant is irrelevant when considering his capacity to generate wealth or perform labour. Discrimination is a social issue. If ethnicity is the sole greatest cause of poverty in the developed world, how do you explain the grinding poverty of Northern New York?

The CRA was President Carter's effort to "level the playing field" and "make up for past injustice". Here's the problem: correcting past injustices by punishing those who were not alive to commit an offence, or rewarding those who were not alive to be offended, only creates more injustice. So the CRA forces banks to make favourable lending practices to minorities who otherwise wouldn't be able to afford mortgages. While it is a lovely gesture, this does not alter the reality that these people couldn't afford mortgages! And when one group gets special consideration, everyone wants in. Low income groups get mortgages they can't afford, so middle income groups start getting mortgages that are more expensive than they can afford. Suddenly, you see corner-store clerks in 150 thousand dollar homes, and mill-workers in 750 thousand dollar homes. What do the banks do? They invent complex financial vehicles to try to make profit off of fundamentally unprofitable ventures. The chickens come home to roost in 2008.

Capitalism is a fundamentally fair system: work is performed, and wealth is created. Capitalism, like true Justice is blind. I am proof of this. My grandfather was a low income Italian immigrant. My father joined the military, got his degree and served honourably for 26 years. He's in the top tax bracket. Canada, and the USA, is filled with people with stories like mine. It boggles the mind that people can still doubt the capacity for human flourishing created under capitalism.

Things go off the rails when government intervenes too heavily. From President Carter to President G.W. Bush, and from Prime Minister Pearson to Prime Minister Harper, people have assumed that the government is the solution to all of life's problems. Strange how Great Britain didn't experience a revival until Thatcher mercilessly reduced government.

You can't say capitalism has failed when you live in a society that can't resist the urge to try to force Smith's invisible hand.

Reintroduction

2009-05-03T15:57:00.000-04:00

Alas, the vagaries of the internet have caused the death of Secular Ijtihad. Somehow, Google didn't want to recognize the password I used. Oh well. I was contemplating a different style anyway. Secular Ijtihad was intended to include chronicles of my silliness, but I found that in the end, people actually enjoyed reading my more serious work. "Morgan in the Wilderness" is the handle I use while commenting on the Globe and Mail, and I've decided to carry on in that tone here. Naturally, due to my profession (for those who don't know, I'll keep it that way), I have to be very careful about how I comment on current events. When commenting as "Morgan in the Wilderness", I developed a sort of persona that was based on firmness of conviction and elegance of prose. Sure, it can be less entertaining than some of my more creative riffs, but eventually a man's style must mature. With "Morgan in the Wilderness", I will strive to pursue a Roman tradition of oratory. This said, one must keep in mind that though I will strive for accuracy, I am in effect more a polemicist than an impartial reporter. My political nature is Libertarian, my philosophical view utilitarian.

Secondly, there are rules to this blog. This is not my facebook account, where I will be too lazy to arbitrate over discussions (those of you who experienced the travesty that was commentary on my dislike of the supposed 4/20 holiday know what I mean). Comments that are libellous will be removed. Comments that do not directly pertain to the issue being discussed will be removed. Comments that fail to meet basic standards for logical consistency will be removed. I will hold you to a Parliamentary standard. Argumentae ad Hitlerum will result in you being mocked, then blocked. I am a supporter of Free Speech, a lover of the US First Amendment. Unfortunately for most trolls, I actually read and understood the Amendment. I am not required to tolerate your views, I am merely forbidden from preventing you from expressing them. For those of you who don't get the difference, it means I'm not allowed to hack your blog to shut it down. I can silence you here whenever I want. See the vast evidence leading to the exoneration of MacLean's Magazine for exerpting Mark Steyn if you need further elucidation.

Finally, some pseudo-legal points. Don't ask me to advertise for you if there is money involved. If you would like me to link your blog, feel free to ask. The views posted in this blog are purely my own as a private citizen, and in no way reflect the views of any group to which I may belong (Italo-Canadians, devilishly handsome young men, etc).